    School Finance: Per-Pupil Spending Differences between Selected
    Inner City and Suburban Schools Varied by Metropolitan Area
    (09-DEC-02, GAO-03-234).

    The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has focused national
    attention on the importance of ensuring each child's access to
    equal educational opportunity. The law seeks to improve the
    performance of schools and the academic achievement of students,
    including those who are economically disadvantaged. The Congress,
    among others, has been concerned about the education of
    economically disadvantaged students. This study focused on
    per-pupil spending, factors influencing spending, and other
    similarities and differences between selected high-poverty inner
    city schools and selected suburban schools in seven metropolitan
    areas: Boston, Chicago, Denver, Fort Worth, New York, Oakland,
    and St. Louis.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-234
        ACCNO:   A05669
      TITLE:     School Finance: Per-Pupil Spending Differences between
    Selected Inner City and Suburban Schools Varied by Metropolitan
    Area
         DATE:   12/09/2002
      SUBJECT:   Academic achievement
    	     Disadvantaged persons
    	     Economically depressed areas
    	     Educational research
    	     Educational testing
    	     Federal funds
    	     Financial analysis
    	     Funds management
    	     Schools
    	     Students
    	     Comparative analysis
    	     Department of Education National
    	     Assessment of Educational Progress

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-03-234

         * Results in Brief
         * Background
         * Spending Differences between Selected Inner City and Suburban Schools
           Varied by Metropolitan Area
              * Differences in Per-Pupil Spending between Selected Inner City
                Schools and Suburban Schools Varied by Metropolitan Area
              * Average Teacher Salaries, Student-Teacher Ratios, and Ratios of
                Students to Student Support Staff Accounted for Most of the
                Differences in School Spending in Selected Schools
              * Inner City Schools at a Disadvantage When Spending Adjusted for
                Student Needs
              * Federal Funds Played Important Role in Helping Inner City Schools
                Meet Expenses
         * Inner City Schools Generally Faced Greater Challenges That May Have
           Affected Student Achievement
              * Inner City Students' Achievement Scores Were Generally Lower than
                Suburban Students' Achievement Scores
              * Inner City Schools We Reviewed Had More First-Year, Thus Less
                Experienced, Teachers than Suburban Schools
              * Enrollment Was Higher in Inner City Schools than in Suburban
                Schools, and Buildings Were Older
              * Inner City Schools Had Less Library and Technological Support
                than Suburban Schools
              * In-School Parental Involvement Differed between Selected Inner
                City and SuburbanSchools
         * Conclusions
         * Agency Comments
         * Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
              * Scope
              * Metropolitan Area Selection
              * Defining Inner Cityand Suburbs
              * School Selection
              * Data Collected
              * Methodology to Analyze Differences in Spending and Factors
                Accounting for Spending Differences
         * Appendix II: School Profiles
         * Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
         * GAO Contacts
         * Acknowledgments
         * GAO's Mission
         * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
              * Order by Mail or Phone
         * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * Public Affairs

                             Report to the Ranking Minority

    GAO

             Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives

                                     December 2002

    SCHOOL FINANCE

    Per-Pupil Spending Differences between Selected Inner City and Suburban Schools
                              Varied by Metropolitan Area

    GAO-03-234

    SCHOOL FINANCE

    Per-Pupil Spending Differences between

    Highlights of GAO-03-234, a report to the

    Selected Inner City and Suburban

    Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
    Representatives

    Schools Varied by Metropolitan Area

    The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has focused national attention on the
    importance of ensuring each child's access to equal educational
    opportunity. The law seeks to improve the performance of schools and the
    academic achievement of students, including those who are economically
    disadvantaged. The Congress, among others, has been concerned about the
    education of economically disadvantaged students. This study focused on
    per-pupil spending, factors influencing spending, and other similarities
    and differences between selected high-poverty inner city schools and
    selected suburban schools in seven metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago,
    Denver, Fort Worth, New York, Oakland, and St. Louis.

    Among the schools GAO reviewed, differences in per-pupil spending between
    inner city and suburban schools varied across metropolitan areas, with
    inner city schools spending more in some metropolitan areas and suburban
    schools spending more in other areas. The inner city schools that GAO
    examined generally spent more per pupil than suburban schools in Boston,
    Chicago, and St. Louis, while in Fort Worth and New York the suburban
    schools in GAO's study almost always spent more per pupil than the inner
    city schools. In Denver and Oakland, spending differences between the
    selected inner city and suburban schools were mixed. In general, higher
    per-pupil expenditures at any given school were explained primarily by
    higher staff salaries regardless of whether the school was an inner city
    or suburban school. Two other explanatory factors were student-teacher
    ratios and ratios of students to student support staff, such as guidance
    counselors, nurses, and librarians. Federal funds are generally targeted
    to low-income areas to compensate for additional challenges faced by
    schools in those areas. In some cases, the infusion of federal funds
    balanced differences in per-pupil expenditures between the selected inner
    city and suburban schools.

    There is a broad consensus that poverty itself adversely affects academic
    achievement, and inner city students in the schools reviewed performed
    less well academically than students in the suburban schools. The
    disparity in achievement may also be related to several other differences
    identified in the characteristics of inner city and suburban schools. At
    the schools GAO visited, inner city schools generally had higher
    percentages of first-year teachers, higher enrollments, fewer library
    resources, and less in-school parental involvement--characteristics that
    some research has shown are related to school achievement.

                          9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

                                   Dollars per pupil

                    High     Middle    Low     High    Middle    Low
                    Chicago                   New York
                           Inner city school         Suburban school

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-234

    To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on the
    link above. For more information, contact Marnie Shaul at (202) 512-7215
    or shaulm@gao.gov

                                        Contents

    Letter       Results in Brief Background Spending Differences between  1 3
                          Selected Inner City and Suburban Schools Varied by  4 8
                        Metropolitan Area Inner City Schools Generally Faced   17
                           Greater Challenges That May Have Affected Student   27
                                     Achievement Conclusions Agency Comments   28
    Appendix I   Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                         29
    Appendix II  School Profiles                                            40
    Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts      47
                    Acknowledgments                                          47
                                                                             47
    Tables       Table 1: Total Enrollment and Percentages of Children in
                      Poverty, Students with Disabilities, and Students with
                     Limited English Proficiency for Selected Schools in the
                     Seven Metropolitan Areas Reviewed Table 2: Spending Per
                       Pupil, Average Teacher Salary, Student-Teacher Ratio,
                      and Student-Support Staff Ratio at the Median Spending
                         School in Each Metropolitan Area Table 3: Per-Pupil
                      Spending with and without Federal Dollars for Selected
                       Inner City and Suburban Schools in Seven Metropolitan
                        Areas Table 4: Metropolitan Areas Selected for Study
                        Table 5: Selected Inner City Census Tracts and Child 6 13
                             Poverty Rates Table 6: Selected Suburban School 17
                              Districts' Child Poverty Rates Table 7: School 30
                        Characteristics, Assessment Measure, and Measurement 33
                         Description Table 8: Regression Results for Factors 34
                    Explaining Differences in Per-Pupil Spending at Selected 36
                                                                     Schools 39

    Table 9: School-Level Student Characteristics for Selected Schools in
    Seven Metropolitan Areas 41

    Table 10: Spending Per Pupil and Spending Per Pupil at Low, Medium, and
    High Weights for Selected Schools in Seven Metropolitan Areas 43

    Table 11: Percent of First-Year Teachers, Federal Dollars Per Pupil, and
    Federal Dollars as a Percent of Total Spending at Selected Schools in
    Seven Metropolitan Areas 45

    Figures
                Figure 1: Paired Comparison (High to High, Middle to Middle, and
                         Low to Low) of Per-Pupil Spending at Selected Inner City
                           and Suburban Schools in Metropolitan Areas Where Inner
                        City Schools Spent More than Suburban Schools           9
                  Figure 2: Paired Comparison (High to High, Middle to Middle,
                                                                           and
                      Low to Low) of Per-Pupil Spending at Selected Inner City
                              and Suburban Schools in Metropolitan Areas Where
                           Suburban Schools Spent More than Inner City Schools 10
                  Figure 3: Paired Comparison (High to High, Middle to Middle,
                                                                           and
                      Low to Low) of Per-Pupil Spending at Selected Inner City
                                and Suburban Schools in the Denver and Oakland
                                     Metropolitan Areas                        11
                  Figure 4: Spending Per Pupil by the Median Inner City and
                      Suburban School in Four Metropolitan Areas for Different
                           Weight Adjustments for Students' Needs              15
                  Figure 5: Average Student Achievement Scores for Selected
                       Schools in Fort Worth, New York, Oakland, and St. Louis 19
                  Figure 6: Percentage of First-Year Teachers by School and
                                      Metropolitan Area                        21
                      Figure 7: Student Enrollments at Selected Schools        23
                Figure 8: Playgrounds of an Inner City School in St. Louis and
                                                                             a
                                 Neighboring Suburban School                   24
                Figure 9: Number of Library Books per 100 Students at Selected
               Schools                                                         26

                                     Abbreviations

    EdTrust        Education Trust
    NAEP           National Assessment of Educational Progress
    SMSA           metropolitan statistical area

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    December 9, 2002

    The Honorable Charles Rangel Ranking Minority Member Committee on Ways and
    Means House of Representatives

    Dear Mr. Rangel:

    The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has focused national attention on the
    importance of ensuring each child's access to equal educational
    opportunity. The law seeks to improve the performance of schools and the
    academic achievement of students, including those who are economically
    disadvantaged. The heightened challenge of meeting the act's new
    accountability requirements underscores the necessity of ensuring that all
    schools have the support they need to provide students with a quality
    public education. The challenge is particularly great for inner city
    schools serving low-income neighborhoods, where students on average
    continue to perform below students in suburban areas. The Congress and
    other policymakers have been concerned that this achievement gap may be
    related to possible differences in the amount of funding and resources
    available to low-income schools and school districts and affluent schools
    and school districts. Research has shown that such funding gaps are common
    at the district level; for example, a recent study by The Education Trust
    found that in 30 of the 47 states studied, school districts with the
    greatest numbers of poor children had less money to spend per student than
    districts with the fewest poor children.1 However, little research has
    been done at the school level.

    To provide you with information about inner city school spending and other
    school characteristics, we determined similarities and differences between
    selected inner city and suburban schools in (1) per-pupil spending and (2)
    other factors that may relate to student achievement, such as teacher
    experience, school enrollment, educational facilities and materials, and
    types of parental involvement.

    1

    The Education Trust, The Funding Gap: Low-Income and Minority Students
    Receive Fewer Dollars, August 2002.

      Page 1 GAO-03-234 Inner City Schools

    This study focuses on differences between inner city and suburban schools,
    and as such is distinct from a study of differences between urban and
    suburban schools; inner city schools, as a subset of urban schools, are in
    the central core of the city and have higher poverty rates. We selected 42
    schools, 21 inner city and 21 suburban public elementary schools, to
    gather information on (1) school level, per-pupil spending, and federal
    revenues and (2) school, teacher, other staff, and student characteristics
    for the 2000-01 school year. We analyzed data from three inner city and
    three suburban schools from each of seven different metropolitan areas of
    medium, large, and very large population sizes: Oakland and St. Louis
    (medium); Boston, Denver, and Fort Worth (large); and New York and Chicago
    (very large).2 In analyzing these data, we applied weights-a technique
    that allowed us to make adjustments to account for varying compositions of
    student need. We applied three different levels of weights.

    To obtain a selection of "typical" schools, we chose the inner city
    schools in each metropolitan area that were at the median for poverty
    among the inner city schools; similarly we chose the school districts at
    the median for poverty among the suburban school districts. We attempted
    also to include one high-performing inner city school in each metropolitan
    area we visited, but were able to identify only two high-performing inner
    city schools-1 in St. Louis and 1 in Oakland. For this selection, we used
    The Education Trust database, which includes high-performing schools in
    low-income areas. We did not include high-performing schools that were
    special schools (e.g., magnet schools, science academies, etc.)3

    In addition, we visited 24 of the 42 selected schools in the New York, St.
    Louis, Fort Worth, and Oakland areas. We visited these schools to obtain
    supplementary information on student achievement, the condition of the
    buildings and facilities, educational materials, and parental involvement.
    We analyzed similarities and differences separately for each geographic
    area and for all seven sites collectively. Our results are not
    generalizable beyond the schools in these seven sites. We conducted our

    2

    Inner city schools and suburban schools in Miami were part of the original
    selection process but were dropped from the study because the district did
    not provide the necessary data.

    3

    The criteria for including a school from the Education Trust database
    included the following: (1) The school was located in a selected inner
    city area. (2) The census child poverty rate for the school exceeded 40
    percent. (3) The school placed in the top 50th percentile among all
    schools on the state's most recent reading assessment test. (4) The school
    was not a special school, for example, magnet school, science academy,
    etc.

                                    Results in Brief

    work from January to November 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards. (A detailed explanation of our methodology
    is found in app. I.)

    Among the schools we reviewed, differences in per-pupil spending between
    inner city and suburban schools varied by metropolitan area, with inner
    city schools spending more in some areas and suburban schools spending
    more in others. In Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, the selected inner city
    schools generally outspent suburban schools on a per-pupil basis. In Fort
    Worth and New York, the suburban schools in our study generally spent more
    per pupil than the selected inner city schools. In Denver and Oakland,
    spending differences between inner city and suburban schools were mixed.
    In general, higher per-pupil expenditures at any given school were
    explained primarily by higher staff salaries regardless of whether the
    school was an inner city or suburban schools. Two other important factors
    included lower student-teacher ratios and lower ratios of students to
    student support staff, such as guidance counselors, nurses, and
    librarians. While the selected inner city schools in Boston, Chicago, and
    St. Louis generally spent more per pupil than neighboring suburban
    schools, when we made adjustments using the highest weights the suburban
    schools generally spent more in every metropolitan area reviewed, because
    inner city schools had higher percentages of low-income students. Some
    research has shown that children from low-income families may require
    extra resources to perform at the same levels as their nonpoor peers. To
    address the additional needs of some children in low-income areas, federal
    education programs target funds to schools in these areas. In some cases,
    the infusion of federal funds has balanced differences in per-pupil
    expenditures between selected inner city and suburban schools.

    Inner city students in the schools we reviewed generally performed poorly
    in comparison to students in suburban schools, a disparity that may be
    related to several differences we identified in the characteristics of
    inner city and suburban schools. Although research results are
    inconclusive on the importance of various factors, some studies have shown
    that greater teacher experience, smaller class size, more library and
    computer resources, and higher levels of parental involvement are
    positively related to student achievement. The inner city schools we
    visited generally had higher percentages of first-year teachers, higher
    enrollments, fewer library and computer resources, and less in-school
    parental involvement. For example, first-year teachers comprised more than
    10 percent of the teaching staff in 8 of the 12 inner city schools
    visited, but the same was

                                       Background

    true in just 4 of 12 suburban schools. In New York City, the selected
    inner city schools had fewer than 1,000 library books per 100 students,
    whereas the selected suburban schools had more than 2,000 library books
    per 100 students.

    The Congress, among others, has been concerned about the academic
    achievement gap between economically disadvantaged students and their more
    advantaged peers. The disparity between poor students' performance on
    standardized tests and the performance of their nonpoor peers is well
    documented, and there is broad consensus that poverty itself adversely
    affects academic achievement. For example, on the National Assessment of
    Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessment, 14 percent of fourth grade
    students who qualified for the free and reduced lunch program (a measure
    of poverty)4 performed at or above the proficient level in comparison to
    41 percent of those students who did not qualify for the program.5
    Furthermore, research has indicated the importance of socioeconomic status
    as a predictor of student achievement.6 Research has shown that the
    achievement gap falls along urban and nonurban lines as well: students
    living in high-poverty, urban areas are even more likely than other poor
    students to fall below basic performance levels.7

    In addition to the achievement gap between poor and nonpoor students,
    concerns exist that this gap may be related to differences between
    per-pupil spending among schools that serve poor and nonpoor communities.
    School district spending is generally related to wealth and tax levels,
    and differences in school district spending can have an impact on spending
    at

    4

    Eligibility for free lunches is set at 130 percent of the official poverty
    line ($22,165 for a family of four during the 2000-01 school year), and
    eligibility for reduced-price lunches extends up to 185 percent of the
    poverty line ($31,543 for a family of four during the 2000-01 school
    year).

    5

    U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
    NAEP, The Nation's Report Card: Fourth-Grade Reading 2000, April 2001.

    6

    See for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, School Finance: State and
    Federal Efforts to Target Poor Students, GAO/HEHS-98-36 (Washington, D.C.:
    Jan. 28, 1998).

    7

    Educational Testing Service, unpublished tabulations from 1994 NAEP
    reading test. Cited in Education Week "Quality Counts," 1998.
    http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc98/challenges/achieve/ac-c1.htm.

    the school level.8 Recently, efforts have been made to achieve greater
    spending equity. Using a variety of approaches, a number of states have
    targeted some additional funding to poor students to amend the unequal
    abilities of local districts to raise revenues for public schools.9
    Comparing spending between schools in simple dollar terms provides one way
    to check for differences; however, this type of straightforward comparison
    may be insufficient to explain spending differences because it does not
    capture the higher cost of educating students with special needs. Schools
    with similar spending per pupil may actually be at a comparative
    disadvantage when adjustments are made to account for differing
    compositions of student needs. Though not definitive, some research shows
    that children with special needs-low-income students, students with
    disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency-may require
    additional educational resources to succeed at the level of their
    nondisadvantaged peers. Because these additional resources require higher
    spending, some researchers have adjusted per-pupil expenditures by
    "weighting" these students to account for the additional spending they may
    be required.10

    Weighting counts each student with special needs as more than one student,
    so that the denominator in the expenditures to students ratio is
    increased, causing the weighted per-pupil expenditure figure to decrease
    accordingly. For example, a school with an enrollment of 100 students may
    have 20 low-income students, 20 students with disabilities, and 10
    students with limited English proficiency. Weighting these three groups of
    special needs students twice as heavily as other students causes weighted
    enrollment to rise to 150 students. If spending per-pupil is $4,000
    without weighting, it drops to $2,667 when weights are applied. The actual
    size of the weights assigned to low-income students, students

    8

    For recent statistics of finance equity among states, see American
    Education Finance Association, Equitable School Finance Systems: Grading
    The States, American Education Finance Association meeting, Austin, TX,
    Mar. 9-11, 2000.

    9

    Spending per pupil reported in this study reflects nominal dollars after
    such adjustments have been made by the state to account for student needs.

    10

    See: S. Chaikind, et al., "What Do We Know About the Costs of Special
    Education? A Selected Review," The Journal of Special Education, 26, no. 4
    (1993): 344-370; American Institutes for Research, What Are We Spending on
    Special Education Services in the United States, 1999-2000?, Advance
    Report No. 1.( Special Education Expenditure Project, Mar. 2002.);
    GAO/HEHS-98-36; T. Parrish, "A Cost Analysis of Alternative Instructional
    Models for Limited English Proficient Students in California," Journal of
    Education Finance (Winter 1994): 256-278.

    with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency is
    subject to debate and generally ranges between 1.2 and 2.0 for low-income
    students, between 1.9 and 2.3 for students with disabilities, and between

    1.10 and 1.9 for students with limited English proficiency.11

    The inner city schools selected for our study had high proportions of
    children in poverty in comparison to the selected suburban schools. The
    elected inner city schools also generally had more students with limited
    English proficiency than their suburban counterparts. However, the
    proportions of students with disabilities in our selected inner city and
    suburban schools differed within and among metropolitan areas. In Denver,
    the selected inner city schools consistently had a higher proportion of
    students with disabilities than the selected suburban schools while in
    Fort Worth, the suburban schools had a higher proportion of students with
    disabilities. (See table 1 for total enrollment and percentages of
    children in poverty, students with disabilities, and students with limited
    English proficiency for selected schools in the seven metropolitan areas
    reviewed in this study.)

    Table 1: Total Enrollment and Percentages of Children in Poverty, Students
    with Disabilities, and Students with Limited English Proficiency for
    Selected Schools in the Seven Metropolitan Areas Reviewed

      Metropolitan area Inner city/suburb Enrollment Percent poor Percent disabled
                                      Percent LEP

                            Boston Inner city 1 712 51 21 0

                                Inner city 2 193 50 9 0

                               Inner city 3 250 49 17 12

                                 Suburban 1 386 7 12 0

                                 Suburban 2 979 7 15 0

                                  Suburban 3 335 7 8 3

                            Chicago Inner city 1 466 59 9 0

                                Inner city 2 900 59 14 5

                                Inner city 3 692 59 12 0

                                 Suburban 1 503 5 17 1

                                  Suburban 2 401 5 8 2

                                  Suburban 3 280 5 6 5

                            Denver Inner city 1 562 52 12 52

                               Inner city 2 372 52 13 19

                               Inner city 3 468 51 12 32

                                 Suburban 1 407 9 13 0

    11Ibid.

    Metropolitan     Inner city / Enrollment  Percent   Percent        Percent
    area                suburb                  poor    disabled           LEP
                        Suburban 2          292         10           8         11
                        Suburban 3          623         11           6         10
    Fort Worth       Inner city 1        760         52           6         17
                        Inner city 2        555         51           3         10
                        Inner city 3        937         51           3         15
                        Suburban 1          413         12          18          2
                        Suburban 2          392         12           6          5
                        Suburban 3          373         14          17         13
    New York         Inner city 1        484         56           9         22
                        Inner city 2        645         52          11         18
                        Inner city 3        630         43           6          3
                        Suburban 1          457          5          16          9
                        Suburban 2          553          5           9          3
                        Suburban 3          536          5           9          0
    Oakland          Inner city 1        745         45           5         64
                        Inner city 2        312         50           9         73
                        Inner city 3      1,238         47           6         41
                        Suburban 1          402          8           8         15
                        Suburban 2          877          8           0          4
                        Suburban 3          460          8           8          3
    St. Louis        Inner city 1        163         85          12          0
                        Inner city 2        292         55          13          0
                        Inner city 3        499         55           8          0
                        Suburban 1          602         11          18          3
                        Suburban 2          391         11           5          0
                        Suburban 3          459          9          11          1

    Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Differences in school spending can affect characteristics that may be
    related to student achievement. There is a large body of research on
    factors that may directly or indirectly contribute to student achievement.
    Spending has been the factor most studied for its effect on student
    achievement. Differences in student outcomes have also been related to
    factors such as teacher quality, class size, quality of educational
    materials, and parental involvement. Our study describes how some of these
    factors may differ across selected inner city and suburban schools.

      Spending Differences between Selected Inner City and Suburban Schools Varied
      by Metropolitan Area

    Differences in per-pupil spending between selected inner city and suburban
    schools varied by metropolitan areas in our study.12 Inner city schools in
    Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis generally spent more per pupil than
    neighboring suburban schools, whereas selected suburban schools in Fort
    Worth and New York almost always spent more per pupil than the inner city
    schools. In Denver and Oakland, no clear pattern of spending emerged.
    Three factors generally explained spending differences between inner city
    and suburban schools: (1) average teacher salaries; (2) student-teacher
    ratios; and (3) ratios of students to student support staff, such as
    guidance counselors, librarians, and nurses. When we adjusted per-pupil
    expenditures to account for the extra resources students facing poverty,
    disabilities, and limited English proficiency might need, inner city
    schools almost always spent less per pupil than suburban schools. To
    compensate for additional challenges faced by schools in these areas,
    federal education dollars are generally targeted to low-income areas. As a
    result, federal funds have played an important role in increasing funding
    to inner city schools.

    Differences in Per-Pupil Spending between Selected Inner City Schools and
    Suburban Schools Varied by Metropolitan Area

    Differences between inner city and suburban school per-pupil spending were
    related to the particular metropolitan area studied and generally seemed
    to be most influenced by teacher salaries. The selected inner city schools
    tended to outspend the suburban schools in the Boston, Chicago, and St.
    Louis metropolitan areas.13 For example, in the Boston metropolitan area,
    the lowest spending inner city school spent more per pupil than the
    highest spending suburban school. (See fig. 1 for a comparison of
    per-pupil spending at selected inner city and suburban schools in these
    areas.)

    12

    We gathered operational school-level spending on personnel salaries,
    building maintenance and repair, and educational materials and supplies.
    Other operational expenditures, for example transportation and capital
    expenditures, are not considered spending for this report. Total spending,
    as used herein, refers to the total amount spent on salaries, building
    maintenance and repair, and educational materials and supplies.

    13

    See appendix I for technical details.

    Page 8 GAO-03-234 Inner City Schools

    Figure 1: Paired Comparison (High to High, Middle to Middle, and Low to
    Low) of Per-Pupil Spending at Selected Inner City and Suburban Schools in
    Metropolitan Areas Where Inner City Schools Spent More than Suburban
    Schools

    9,000 Dollars per pupil

        8,000

    7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 High Middle Low High Middle Low
    High Middle Low Boston Chicago St. Louis

    Inner city school Suburban school High-performing inner city school

    Source: GAO's data analysis.

    In contrast, in the Fort Worth and New York metropolitan areas, suburban
    schools generally outspent inner city schools. For example, among the
    selected schools in the Fort Worth metropolitan area, the lowest spending
    suburban school had per-pupil expenditures 21 percent higher than the
    highest spending inner city school. (See fig. 2 for a comparison of
    per-pupil spending at selected inner city and suburban schools in these
    areas.)

    Figure 2: Paired Comparison (High to High, Middle to Middle, and Low to
    Low) of Per-Pupil Spending at Selected Inner City and Suburban Schools in
    Metropolitan Areas Where Suburban Schools Spent More than Inner City
    Schools

        9,000 Dollars per pupil

    8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 High Middle Low High
    Middle Low Fort Worth New York

                           Inner city school Suburban school

    Source: GAO's data analysis.

    In Denver and Oakland, an examination of spending differences among the
    selected suburban and inner city schools revealed mixed results. That is,
    analysis of spending differences showed no general pattern of spending
    that favored either inner city or suburban schools. (See fig. 3 for a
    comparison of per-pupil spending at selected inner city and suburban
    schools in the Denver and Oakland metropolitan areas.)

    Figure 3: Paired Comparison (High to High, Middle to Middle, and Low to
    Low) of Per-Pupil Spending at Selected Inner City and Suburban Schools in
    the Denver and Oakland Metropolitan Areas

    9,000 Dollars per pupil8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
    High Middle Low High Middle Low Denver Qakland

    High-performing inner city school Source: GAO's data analysis.

                           Inner city school Suburban school

    Average Teacher Salaries, Student-Teacher Ratios, and Ratios of Students
    to Student Support Staff Accounted for Most of the Differences in School
    Spending in Selected Schools

    Among the schools in our study, three factors influenced per-pupil
    spending: average teacher salaries, student-teacher ratios, and the ratio
    of students to student support staff.14 Average teacher salaries appeared
    to have the greatest impact on per-pupil spending, followed by lower
    student-teacher ratios and lower ratios of students to student support
    staff.

    Average teacher salaries influenced per-pupil spending in areas where
    inner city schools spent more per pupil (Boston and Chicago), where
    suburban schools spent more per pupil (New York), and where spending was
    mixed (Oakland). For example, in Chicago, where inner city schools
    generally outspent suburban schools, the median inner city school average
    teacher salary was $47,851, compared with $39,852 in the suburbs. In
    Oakland, where spending between suburban schools and inner city schools
    was mixed, the average teacher salary at the median spending school was
    $60,395 and per-pupil spending was $4,849, compared with $52,440 and
    $4,022 at the median spending inner city school.

    Student-teacher ratios and ratios of students to student support staff
    were factors that could offset the influence of teacher salaries in
    explaining per-pupil spending.15 For example, in Fort Worth, where the
    three suburban schools typically spent more per student than inner city
    schools, inner city teacher salaries were generally higher than suburban
    teacher salaries. However, ratios of students to both teachers and student
    support staff were lower in our selected suburban schools. For example,
    the median spending inner city school in Fort Worth had 21 students per
    teacher, compared with 17 students per teacher in the suburbs.
    Additionally, the median spending inner city school had 1 student support
    staff professional for every 162 students, whereas in the suburbs the
    ratio was 1 to 68. (Table 2 lists factors contributing to higher per-pupil
    spending-average teacher salaries, student-teacher ratios, and ratios of
    students to support staff-for the median spending school in each reviewed
    metropolitan area.)

    14

    Regression analysis was employed to identify factors influencing per-pupil
    spending. The t-scores of average teacher salary, student-teacher ratio,
    and the ratio of students-to-student support staff were found to be
    significant at the 0.05 level. Maintenance and repair spending was found
    to be positively related to per-pupil spending, but not at the 0.05 level.
    See appendix I for technical details.

    15

    Student support staff was defined as including guidance counselors, social
    workers, psychologists, librarians, nurses, speech therapists, principals,
    and assistant principals.

    Inner City Schools at a Disadvantage When Spending Adjusted for Student
    Needs

    Table 2: Spending Per Pupil, Average Teacher Salary, Student-Teacher
    Ratio, and Student-Support Staff Ratio at the Median Spending School in
    Each Metropolitan Area

                                       Average       Student-
                       Spending        teacher        teacher    Students-student
                          per pupil    salary           ratio support staff ratio
    Boston
    Inner city            $5,770    $61,079           16:1               119:1

                            Suburb $4,433 $38,180 17:1 61:1

                                        Chicago

    Inner city          $4,482          $46,661          23:1             58:1
    Suburb              $3,216          $39,852          21:1            100:1
    Denver
    Inner city          $3,852          $38,044          20:1            171:1
    Suburb              $3,313          $32,753          17:1             86:1
    Fort Worth
    Inner city          $3,058          $41,402          21:1            162:1
    Suburb              $4,246          $33,316          17:1             68:1
    New York
    Inner city          $6,057          $42,285           a                  a
    Suburb              $7,218          $72,591          18:1             73:1
    Oakland
    Inner city          $4,022          $52,440          30:1            233:1
    Suburb              $4,849          $60,395          20:1            155:1
    St. Louis
    Inner city          $5,337          $33,223          25:1             28:1
    Suburb              $3,467          $34,304          13:1             87:1

    Note: School districts in New York City did not provide us with
    information on student-teacher ratios and the ratio of students to student
    support staff.

    a

    Not applicable. Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Despite higher per-pupil spending by about half of the inner city schools
    in our study, inner city schools generally spent less compared with
    neighboring suburban schools when spending was weighted to account for
    differing compositions of student needs. To account for the greater costs
    that may be associated with educating low-income students, students with
    disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency, some
    researchers have used formulas that weight these students more heavily
    than other students. In a similar fashion, we applied weights to our
    per-pupil expenditure data.

    The use of the lowest and medium weights had little impact on spending
    differences between inner city and suburban schools.16 Inner city schools
    in Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis continued to outspend neighboring
    suburban schools in most cases. For example, in Chicago, when students
    were weighted with the lowest weight, the median per-pupil spending for
    inner city school was $3,743 per pupil compared with $2,996 for the
    suburban school. Similarly, the use of medium weights generally did not
    result in higher per-pupil spending at suburban schools. For example,
    using medium weights, the median inner city school in Chicago still spent
    more than the median suburban school, although the difference was
    smaller-$3,089 compared with $2,858.

    However, when the highest weight was applied, inner city per-pupil
    spending fell below suburban school spending in almost all cases.17 For
    example, in Chicago when the highest weight was applied, per-pupil
    spending at the median inner city school was less than that of the
    suburban school, $2,629 as compared with $2,734. Similarly, in the New
    York metropolitan area, where suburban schools we reviewed outspent inner
    city schools, the use of the highest weights to adjust for student needs
    caused the differences between inner city and suburban school spending to
    be substantially enlarged. (See fig. 4 for examples of how spending
    changes as different weights are applied for per-pupil spending at the
    median inner city and suburban schools in four metropolitan areas.)

    16

    The actual size of the weights assigned to low-income, special education,
    and limited English proficiency students is subject to debate and
    generally ranges from a 1.2 to 2.0 for low-income students, from 1.9 to
    2.3 for special education students, and from 1.1 to 1.9 for students with
    limited English proficiency. Consequently, low-weights were 1.2 for
    low-income students, 1.9 for special education students, and 1.1 for
    students with limited English proficiency. The medium weights were 1.6 for
    low-income students, 2.1 for special education students, and 1.5 for
    students with limited English proficiency. The high weights were 2.0 for
    low-income students, 2.3 for special education students, and 1.9 for
    students with limited English proficiency.

    17

    The differences between inner city and suburban weighted per-pupil
    spending was most affected by differences in the proportion of low-income
    students in inner city and suburban schools. The inner city schools in our
    study served populations with very high proportions of low-income
    students.

      Figure 4: Spending Per Pupil by the Median Inner City and Suburban School in
                      Four Metropolitan Areas for Different Weight

    Adjustments for Students' Needs
    Chicago                                   St. Louis
    Spending per pupil (median spending       8,000 Spending per pupil (median
    school)8,000                                    spending school)
    7,000                                     7,000
    6,000                                     6,000

    1,000                                          1,000
    0                                              0
         No        Low Medium          High             No        Low Medium High
         Weighting                                      Weighting
                                 Inner city weight
                                  Suburban weight
                              Source: GAO's data
                              analysis.

    Federal Funds Played Important Role in Helping Inner City Schools Meet
    Expenses

    Because federal programs, such as Title I, specifically target funds to
    schools in low-income areas, these federal funds generally helped reduce
    or eliminate the gap between selected inner city and suburban schools in
    terms of per-pupil expenditures.18 In the Denver and St. Louis
    metropolitan areas, federal funds generally eliminated the gap between
    inner city and suburban schools' per-pupil spending. In Fort Worth,
    without federal funds per-pupil spending at the selected inner city
    schools would have been about 63 percent of selected suburban schools, and
    in Oakland, per-pupil spending would have been about 78 percent of
    suburban schools. However, selected inner city schools in Boston and
    Chicago would have still spent more than suburban schools without federal
    funds. (See table 3 for a comparison of inner city and suburban per child
    spending with and without federal dollars.)

    18

    See U.S. General Accounting Office, Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit
    Though Funding Per Poor Child Differs, GAO-02-242 (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
    31, 2002).

    Page 16 GAO-03-234 Inner City Schools

      Inner City Schools Generally Faced Greater Challenges That May Have Affected
      Student Achievement

    Table 3: Per-Pupil Spending with and without Federal Dollars for Selected
    Inner City and Suburban Schools in Seven Metropolitan Areas

    Per-pupil spending with Per-pupil spending federal dollars without federal
    dollars

                 Inner city Suburb Metropolitan area Inner city Suburb

                           $6,731 $4,737 Boston $6,283 $4,620

                              $5,770 $4,433 $5,191 $4,264

                              $4,998 $4,277 $4,669 $4,147

                          $4,529 $3,975 Chicago $4,049 $3,747

                              $4,482 $3,216 $3,859 $3,145

                              $3,595 $3,053 $2,936 $2,790

                           $3,865 $5,404 Denver $3,437 $5,275

                              $3,852 $3,313 $3,136 $3,203

                              $3,240 $2,810 $2,567 $2,717

                         $2,984 $4,391 Fort Worth $2,474 $4,202

                              $3,058 $4,040 $2,472 $3,727

                              $3,282 $4,246 $2,316 $3,655

                         $7,263 $8,637 New Yorka $6,318 $8,457

                              $5,904 $7,218 $5,236 $7,204

                                     $6,566 $6,298

                          $4,022 $4,849 Oakland $3,567 $4,840

                              $4,100 $4,975 $3,355 $4,796

                              $2,810 $2,470 $2,517 $2,453

                         $5,337 $4,395 St. Louis $3,844 $4,202

                              $6,311 $3,467 $3,730 $3,361

                              $3,162 $3,106 $2,287 $3,000

    aSchool level federal dollars received for only two inner city schools in
    New York. Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Factors that may relate to student achievement differed between inner city
    and suburban schools in our study. Research has shown a positive
    relationship between student achievement and factors such as teacher
    experience, lower enrollment, more library books and computer resources,
    and higher levels of parental involvement. Among the 24 schools we
    visited, the average student achievement scores were generally lower in
    inner city than in suburban schools. Along with lower achievement scores,
    these inner city schools were more likely to have a higher percentage of
    first-year teachers, whose lack of experience can be an indicator of lower
    teacher quality. In addition, in comparison to the suburban schools, inner
    city schools generally were older, had higher student enrollments, and had
    fewer library books per pupil and less technological support. Finally, the
    type of in-school parental involvement in the inner city and suburban
    schools differed.

    Inner City Students' Achievement Scores Were Generally Lower than Suburban
    Students' Achievement Scores

    In general, at the schools we visited in the metropolitan areas of Fort
    Worth, New York, Oakland, and St. Louis, inner city students' average
    achievement scores on state reading assessment tests were lower than
    scores at the neighboring suburban schools. Two schools were exceptions to
    this pattern. In St. Louis, we specially selected one high-performing
    inner city school; students at this school performed higher than students
    at the three suburban schools we visited. In the Fort Worth metropolitan
    area, one inner city school performed slightly higher than two of the
    three suburban schools we visited. (See fig. 5 for average student
    achievement scores for selected schools in the four metropolitan areas.)

    Figure 5: Average Student Achievement Scores for Selected Schools in Fort Worth,

    New York, Oakland, and St. Louis
    Fort Worth                            New York
    90 Average student achievement scores 750 Average student achievement
                                                 scores
    State average: 82.6

    700

    State average: 653

    80 650

    600 70

    550

    60

    500 Inner city Suburban Inner city Suburban

        Oakland St. Louis

          700 Average student achievement scores 800 Average student achievement
          scores

    750

    State average 635.9

    650

    700

    State average: 641.9

    650

    600

    600

    550

    550

    500 Inner city Suburban Inner city Suburban 500

    High-performing inner city school Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Inner City Schools We Reviewed Had More First-Year, Thus Less Experienced,
    Teachers than Suburban Schools

    Although the selected inner city schools' student achievement scores were
    generally lower, this pattern did not appear to be related to or
    consistent with per-pupil spending. That is, higher-performing schools
    were not necessarily schools that were high in per-pupil spending. For
    example, per-pupil spending at the highest-performing inner city school in
    Fort Worth we visited was $3,058, which was higher than one selected inner
    city school, lower than the other selected inner city school, and lower
    than each of the suburban schools.

    First-year teachers in the 24 schools we visited generally constituted a
    higher percentage of the faculty in inner city schools than suburban
    schools.19 First-year teachers comprised more than 10 percent of the
    teaching staff in 8 of the 12 inner city schools, but the same was true in
    just 4 of 12 suburban schools. However, both the percent of first-year
    teachers and differences between inner city and suburban schools varied
    among the 4 metropolitan areas. (See fig. 6 for the percentage of
    first-year teachers by school and metropolitan area.) For example, in the
    New York metropolitan area there were no first-year teachers at 2 of the
    suburban schools, but at 2 inner city schools first-year teachers were 24
    and 13 percent of the faculty.20 In the Fort Worth metropolitan area, 2 of
    the suburban schools had almost twice the percent of first-year teachers
    as the two inner city schools with the highest percent of first-year
    teachers.

    19

    The percentage of first-year year teachers can be used as an indicator of
    lower teacher quality because of their relative inexperience.

    20

    Information on first-year teachers was received for only 2 of the 3
    selected New York City schools.

    Page 20 GAO-03-234 Inner City Schools

    Figure 6: Percentage of First-Year Teachers by School and Metropolitan
    Area

    25 Percentage of first-year teachers

                         Fort Worth New York Oakland St. Louis

    Inner city school Suburban school High-performing inner city school

    Indicates 0% of first-year teachers at suburban school

    Indicates 0% of first-year teachers at high-performing inner city school

    Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Note: One New York school did not provide data on first-year teachers.

    Notably, the percentage of first-year teachers was low at the two
    high-performing inner city schools. In Oakland, the percentage of
    first-year teachers at the high-performing inner city school was 6
    percent, compared with 12 percent at the other two inner city schools. In
    St. Louis, the high-performing inner city school had no first-year
    teachers, whereas the other two inner city schools had 11 and 16 percent.

    As noted earlier in the report, average teacher salaries in large part
    accounted for most of the differences in school spending. The fact that
    teaching staff at inner city schools were generally comprised of higher
    percentages of first-year teachers is not inconsistent with the finding on
    teacher salaries. The average teacher salary at a school includes the
    salaries of all teachers in the school, from first-year teachers to the
    most senior staff. For example, in a school with a high proportion of
    first-year teachers the average teacher salary could still be higher than
    that of

    Enrollment Was Higher in Inner City Schools than in Suburban Schools, and
    Buildings Were Older

    another school because of higher proportions of tenured teachers and the
    district's salary structure.

    The enrollment of the 12 inner city schools we visited tended to be higher
    than that of the 12 suburban schools we visited, but enrollment varied
    across and within metropolitan areas.21 The national average elementary
    school enrollment is 443, and schools with enrollments over 600 are
    considered "large," regardless of the school's capacity.22 In three out of
    the four metropolitan areas we visited, Fort Worth, New York, and Oakland,
    the enrollment at the inner city schools was consistently higher than the
    national average enrollment. In addition, 6 of the 12 inner city schools
    we visited had enrollments over 600 students. In contrast, enrollments
    exceeded 600 in only 2 of the 12 suburban schools we visited. (See fig. 7
    for enrollments at the selected schools.)

    21

    WestEd reports that research indicates smaller schools can reduce the
    effects of poverty on student achievement. See, WestEd, Are Small Schools
    Better? School Size Safety & Learning, November 21, 2001, San Francisco,
    CA.

    22

    National Center for Education Statistics, Condition of American Public
    School Facilities, 1999.

    Page 22 GAO-03-234 Inner City Schools

    Figure 7: Student Enrollments at Selected Schools

    1,400 Students enrolled

                         Fort Worth New York Oakland St. Louis

    National average: 443 students enrolled

    Inner city school Suburban school High-performing inner city school

    Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Among the schools we visited, most of the inner city schools were older
    than 50 years, which is higher than the national average of 43 years.
    Furthermore, 7 of the oldest 10 buildings were inner city schools, 2
    having been built in the 19th century. In contrast, most of the suburban
    schools we visited were less than 40 years old.

    In addition to the physical condition of the buildings, playground
    facilities in the inner city schools differed greatly from facilities in
    the suburban schools. Inner city schools we visited were less likely to
    have playground equipment and expansive play areas. For example, the
    playgrounds in St. Louis suburban schools all had green fields and a
    variety of playground equipment. In this same metropolitan area, only one
    of the inner city schools had any playground equipment and at the other
    two schools asphalt lots were the single outdoor recreational facility.
    Figure 8 shows the playgrounds of an inner city school and a suburban
    school in the St. Louis metropolitan area.

    Figure 8: Playgrounds of an Inner City School in St. Louis and a
    Neighboring Suburban School

    Inner City Schools Had Less Library and Technological Support than
    Suburban Schools

    Overall, the inner city schools we visited had fewer library books per
    child and were less likely to have a computer laboratory than suburban
    schools. Most of the suburban schools visited were below the national
    average of 2,585 books per 100 students-7 of the 12 schools had more than
    2,000 books per 100 students. However, only 3 of the inner city schools
    visited had more than 2,000 books per 100 students.23 For example, in New
    York City, the 3 selected inner city schools had fewer than 1,000 library
    books per 100 students, whereas the 3 selected suburban schools had more
    than 2,000 library books per 100 students and one had more than 3,000.
    Notably, the high-performing inner city school in St. Louis had 2,813
    library books per 100 students, more than any of the suburban schools we
    visited in that area. Similarly, the high-performing inner city school in
    Oakland had 2,244 books per 100 students, which was more than the other
    two Oakland inner city schools and 2 of the 3 selected suburban schools.
    Furthermore, only 7 of the 12 selected inner city schools had a full-time
    librarian, whereas all but one suburban school had a full-time librarian.
    (See fig. 9 for the number of library books per 100 students at selected
    schools.)

    23

    The number of library books reported is not precise. The reported number
    is based upon data that include both counts provided by some schools and
    best estimates provided by librarians from other schools.

    Page 25 GAO-03-234 Inner City Schools

    Figure 9: Number of Library Books per 100 Students at Selected Schools

    4,000 Books per 100 students

                         Fort Worth New York Oakland St. Louis

    National average: 2,585 books per 100 students

    Inner city school Suburban school High-performing inner city school

    Source: Prepared by GAO from school site visits.

    Our site visits also revealed a difference between inner city and suburban
    schools in terms of the presence of a computer laboratory. Eleven of the
    12 suburban schools we visited had a computer laboratory, whereas 8 of the
    inner city schools visited had such a facility. Among schools with
    computer laboratories, however, the ratio of students to laboratory
    computers was similar among inner city and suburban schools.

    In-School Parental Involvement Differed between Selected Inner City and
    Suburban Schools

    Parents of children attending the suburban schools we visited were more
    involved in on-site school activities than parents of inner city
    children.24 According to the suburban school principals, parental
    involvement in their schools was typically very high and included
    participation in volunteer activities, attendance at parent-teacher
    conferences, and providing financial support to the school. Parent
    volunteerism at suburban schools could be quite substantial. For example,
    parents at one suburban school in the Oakland metropolitan area provided
    24,000 hours of volunteer time during the school year. Inner city
    principals characterized parents as concerned and interested in their
    children's education, though less likely to attend parent-teacher
    conferences and volunteer in school. A number of inner city principals we
    interviewed also noted that while parents generally wanted to help their
    children succeed in school, they often lacked the necessary finances,
    skills, or education to offer additional assistance beyond that offered by
    the school.

                                      Conclusions

    Our findings suggest that spending differences between the inner city
    schools and suburban schools in our review do exist, but these differences
    for the most part depend upon the metropolitan area. In some metropolitan
    areas, inner city schools spent more per pupil whereas in others suburban
    schools spent more per pupil. Spending differences, regardless of
    metropolitan area for the most part, seemed to be the result of
    differences in salaries and student to teacher and staff ratios. However,
    the very heavy concentration of poverty in inner city schools may place
    them at a spending disadvantage, even when spending is equal. In addition,
    the suburban schools, as well as the high-performing inner city schools we
    visited, generally had more experienced teachers, lower enrollments, more
    library books per child, and more parental in-school volunteer activities
    than the other inner city schools in this study. These factors are
    important to consider in improving the performance of inner city schools.

    24

    Research has indicated the importance of parental involvement to student
    achievement. The National Conference of State Legislatures reported on a
    comprehensive review of 66 studies that examined the correlation between
    parent involvement and student success and concluded that parent
    involvement, not income or social status, was the most accurate predictor
    of student success. See National Conference of State Legislatures,
    Improving Student Achievement, July 2001, citing Anne T. Henderson and
    Nancy Berla, A New Generation of Evidence: The Family is Critical to
    Student Achievement (Washington, D.C., Center for Law and Education,
    1995).

      Agency Comments

    We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for
    review and comment. Education's Executive Secretariat confirmed that
    department officials had reviewed the draft and had no comments.

    We are sending a copy of this report to the Secretary of Education. We
    will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
    will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http:// www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me
    at (202) 512-7215. See appendix III for other staff acknowledgments.

    Sincerely yours,

    Marnie S. Shaul, Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    The objectives of our study were to provide information on similarities
    and differences between (1) per-pupil spending in selected inner city and
    suburban schools and (2) other characteristics that may relate to student
    achievement, such as, teacher experience, school enrollment, educational
    materials, physical facilities, and parental involvement. To address the
    first objective, we reviewed the literature on spending differences,
    interviewed experts about the issues and approaches to measuring spending
    data, and collected spending and related school data on 42 inner city and
    suburban schools. To address the second objective, we examined the
    literature, interviewed experts about relationships between student
    achievement and school characteristics, and visited 24 inner city and
    suburban schools to collect information on student achievement, the
    quality and availability of educational materials, the condition of the
    buildings and facilities, and type and extent of parental involvement.
    This appendix discusses the scope of the study, criteria for selecting
    metropolitan areas and schools, and the methods employed to describe and
    explain observed spending differences.

    Scope This study focused on similarities and differences between inner
    city schools and suburban schools. This is different and distinct from a
    study of similarities and differences between urban and suburban schools,
    or urban and suburban districts, as urban schools and districts generally
    include a wider range of poverty than inner city schools. This study
    covered selected inner city and suburban schools in seven metropolitan
    areas.

    Metropolitan Area Selection Metropolitan areas were purposively selected
                                   to reflect diversity on the basis of geography
                                   and size. We used geographic areas from the
                                   Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Three
                                   size categories were used: (1) very large, (2)
                                   large, and (3) medium. We defined these by
                                   population.
                                   o  Very large: areas where the central city of
                                   a metropolitan area had a population of more
                                   than 1 million residents;
                                   o  Large: areas where the central city of a
                                   metropolitan area had a population between
                                   500,000 and 1 million residents;
                                   o  Medium: areas where the central city of a
                                   metropolitan area had a population between
                                   250,000 and 500,000 residents.

    Defining Inner City and Suburbs

    The metropolitan areas selected for inclusion in the study were Boston,
    Chicago, Denver, Fort Worth, Miami, New York, Oakland, and St. Louis.
    Inner city and suburban schools in Miami were dropped from the study
    because the district did not provide the necessary data. (See table 4 for
    the selected metropolitan areas.)

    Table 4: Metropolitan Areas Selected for Study
    Category        Metropolitan area   Geographic location    City population
    Very large    Chicago               Midwest                      2,896,016
                     New York              Northeast                    8,008,278
    Large         Boston                Northeast                      589,141
                     Denver                West                           554,636
                     Fort Worth            South                          534,694
    Medium        Miami                 South                          362,470
                     Oakland               West                           399,484
                     St. Louis             Midwest                        348,189

                      Source: GAO's data analysis and 2000 Census.

    For this study, in consultation with experts, we defined "inner city" as a
    contiguous geographic area that (1) had a poverty rate of 40 percent or
    higher, (2) was located within the "central core" of a city with a
    population of at least 250,000 persons, and (3) the city is the central
    city of a metropolitan with a population of at least 1 million persons.

    We defined suburb as the geographic area that is (1) outside the
    boundaries of a central city with a population of at least 250,000
    persons,

    (2) inside the boundaries of the metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) of
    the central city, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and
    used by the census, and (3) the metropolitan area has a population of at
    least 1 million persons.

    In total, we collected spending data on 42 schools, 21 inner city and 21
    suburban public elementary schools in seven metropolitan areas, and
    gathered information on (1) school-level per-pupil spending and federal
    revenues, and (2) school, teacher, other staff, and student
    characteristics for the 2000-01 school year. In addition, we conducted
    site visits at 24 of the selected schools. These schools were located in
    the New York, St. Louis, Fort Worth, and Oakland metropolitan areas. We
    visited them in order to obtain supplementary information on
    characteristics that might affect student achievement, such as facilities,
    educational materials, and types of parental involvement.

                                    School Selection

    The study was designed to compare "typical" inner city and "typical"
    suburban schools, rather than those schools with extreme poverty or
    wealth. We consulted with experts about our design. We used the factors
    described below to select typical schools. Our goal was to make
    comparisons that would reflect likely differences, if any, between the
    inner city and suburban schools in a given metropolitan area.

    To select the inner city schools, we (1) consulted with local experts in
    each metropolitan area to identify the geographic area of the central city
    of the SMSA generally considered the inner city, (2) calculated census
    child poverty rates for each census tract within the inner city area,

    (3)
               retained identified census tracts with census child poverty rates
               higher than 40 percent, (4) ranked the census tracts by poverty
               rate, and

    (5)
               identified the three inner city census tracts closest to the 50th
               percentile, that is, the median poverty census tracts of the inner
               city.1 We then selected the public elementary school that served
               those census tracts, but purposely excluded schools that were
               special schools, for example, magnet schools, science academies,
               etc.

    Where possible, we attempted to include one high-performing inner city
    school in each metropolitan area we visited. We used Dispelling the Myth,
    an Education Trust (EdTrust) database of high-poverty, high-performing
    schools, for this selection. Dispelling the Myth is an ongoing EdTrust
    project to identify high-poverty and high-minority schools that have high
    student performance or have made substantial improvement in student
    achievement. We identified schools in that database with a student poverty
    rate greater than 50 percent and an overall achievement score on the most
    recent state reading assessment test above the 50th percentile. Because
    the EdTrust database used free and reduced lunch eligibility as its

    1

    In two metropolitan areas, New York and Oakland, local experts identified
    three distinct inner city areas. In these two metropolitan areas, the
    census tract in each inner city area closest to median level poverty was
    selected. Two of the three selected inner city schools in New York-schools
    selected from Harlem and the Bronx-had poverty rates above 40 percent and
    were located in inner city areas. These schools, however, were selected on
    the basis of per capita income, which was the selection methodology
    employed during the early design phase of the study and subsequently
    replaced by the median poverty rate approach. The schools were retained,
    however, for data efficiency purposes and because their child poverty
    rates were consistent with that of schools that would have been selected
    in their stead.

    criterion for poverty,2 we further verified that the school was located in
    an inner city census tract as defined by this study serving an area with a
    census child poverty rate greater than 40 percent. We purposely excluded
    schools that were special schools, for example, magnet schools, science
    academies, etc. Inner city schools from the St. Louis and Oakland
    metropolitan areas met these criteria. The identified high-performing
    inner city school in St. Louis replaced a selected school. The identified
    high-performing inner city school in Oakland, however, was a school that
    would have been selected through the described census tract approach and
    was, therefore, treated similarly to the other selected inner city
    schools. (See table 5 for the selected inner city census tracts and child
    poverty rates.)

    Child poverty can be measured by (1) census data or (2) the number of
    children eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The subsidized lunch
    program provides a looser definition of poverty than census poverty data.
    The number of students eligible for subsidized lunches is roughly double
    the number meeting the census poverty definition. Nonetheless, according
    to the Department of Education, the subsidized lunch program provides the
    best available source of data on low-income students at the school level.

    Page 32 GAO-03-234 Inner City Schools

           Table 5: Selected Inner City Census Tracts and Child Poverty Rates

                   Metropolitan area Census tract Child poverty rate

                                   Boston 0611 48.5%

                                       0814 49.8%

                                       0924 50.9%

                                   Chicago 6106 58.6%

                                       6812 58.9%

                                       4001 59.0%

                                  Denver 0011.02 51.3%

                                     0007.02 52.0%

                                       0010 52.2%

                                Fort Worth 1046.04 51.0%

                                     1050.06 51.2%

                                     1061.02 52.1%

                                 New Yorka 209.01 42.9%

                                       0395 52.4%

                                        65 56.5%

                                   Oakland 4054 44.9%

                                       4088 46.8%

                                      4024b 49.6%

                                 St. Louis 1212c 85.0%

                                       1104 54.8%

                                       1243 54.9%

    Note: Child poverty rates were computed using 1990 census data.

    a

    Census tracts are from three separate counties: CT 209.01 (New York); CT
    0395 (Kings); CT 65 (Bronx).

    bCensus tract contained identified high-performing inner city school.

    c

    Census tract 1112 (54.6% child poverty) was replaced by identified
    high-performing inner city school in census tract 1212.

    Source: GAO's data analysis.

    To select suburban schools, we (1) collected census child poverty rates
    for all school districts in the defined suburban area outside the central
    city of the selected metropolitan area and within the same state as the
    central city; (2) ranked by census child poverty rates in the suburban
    school districts; and (3) identified the three suburban school districts
    closest to the 50th percentile, that is, the median suburban school
    districts, based upon child poverty rates. We dropped districts that were
    contiguous or had a 5 to 17-year-old population of less than 500 and
    replaced them with the district with the next closest median level child
    poverty that did not have any of these attributes.

    For those districts, we selected the elementary school of the district. If
    more than one elementary school served the school district, we selected
    the elementary school in the district with the median child poverty rate
    (as determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility) for elementary
    schools in that district. (See table 6 for the child poverty rates for the
    selected suburban school districts.)

            Table 6: Selected Suburban School Districts' Child Poverty Rates

                Metropolitan area Selected school district poverty rate

                            District 1 District 2 District 3

                                 Boston 6.5% 6.6% 6.9%

                                 Chicago 4.5% 4.6% 4.6%

                                Denver 8.8% 10.1% 11.0%

                              Fort Worth 12.0% 12.3% 13.9%

                                New York 4.9% 5.1% 5.2%

                                 Oakland 7.5% 7.9% 8.4%

                               St. Louis 9.3% 10.5% 10.8%

    Note: Child poverty rates were computed using 1995 census child poverty
    estimates for school districts.

    Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Data Collected From 42 selected schools we obtained detailed information
    for the 2000-01 school year on (1) school spending and federal revenues,

    (2) staffing and teacher experience, and (3) student characteristics. The
    practical difficulties of conducting any data collection effort may
    introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
    difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted or in the sources
    of information that are available can introduce unwanted variability into
    the results. We took steps in the development of the instrumentation, the
    data collection, and the data editing and analysis to minimize these
    errors. We pretested our data collection instrument with the Boston school
    district and called individual district officials to clarify answers.
    Completed instruments were examined for inconsistencies, and follow-up
    calls were made to districts to clarify imprecise responses or data that
    were unusually different from other respondent data.

            * School spending data included (1) instructional staff salaries, (2)
              certified professional staff salaries, (3) administrative staff
              salaries, (4) operations staff salaries, (5) education materials
              and supplies spending, and
            * (6) building maintenance and repair spending. In addition, schools
              reported federal sources of revenue.
            * School, staff, and student information included numbers of (1)
              regular education teachers, special education, English as a second
              language instructional staff, and other specialized instructional
              staff, for example, art teachers, reading teachers; (2) regular
              education teacher assistants, special education teacher assistants,
              and other instructional staff teacher assistants, for example, art
              teacher assistants, reading teacher assistants;
                 * student support professional and nonprofessional staff by job
                   title;
                 * administrators and administrative assistants by job title; (5)
                   operations staff by job title; (6) the number of first-year
                   teachers; (7) total enrollment;
                 * number of students with disabilities and number of students
                   with limited English proficiency; (9) race and ethnicity of
                   students; and (10) the number of students eligible for free
                   and reduced lunch.

    Data on student achievement, facilities, educational materials, and
    parental involvement that may contribute to academic achievement were
    obtained from site visits to 12 inner city and 12 suburban schools. We
    developed a site visit protocol and pretested it at site visits to inner
    city and suburban schools in the New York and Baltimore metropolitan
    areas.

    We obtained information on student achievement. In Fort Worth, we used
    Grade 3 reading scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. In New
    York, we used Grade 4 scores on the State English Language Arts
    Assessment. In Oakland, we used Grade 4 reading scores on the Stanford 9
    test. In St. Louis, we used Grade 3 Communication Arts scores on the
    Missouri Assessment Program. In each metropolitan area, we contrasted the
    achievement scores of the selected schools to the state average.

    Depending upon data, information was collected as a dichotomous variable
    (yes/no), date or period of time, number, or ranked scale assessment. (See
    table 7 for school site visit information collected, assessment measure,
    and description of the measurement scale.)

    Methodology to Analyze Differences in Spending and Factors Accounting for
    Spending Differences

    Table 7: School Characteristics, Assessment Measure, and Measurement
    Description

                      Category Assessment Measurement description

                                       Facilities

                       Age of building Date Year of construction

                    Renovations Date Year of most recent renovation

              Ancillary buildings Yes/no Presence of auxiliary classrooms

                Classroom size Square feet Size of 2nd Grade classrooms

    Special classrooms        Yes/no  Presence of special classrooms and
                                         description a GAO assessment
    Playgrounds               Yes/no           GAO assessment (1- 4 scale) and
    Condition of facilities   Scale   description
    Educational materials
    Age of textbooks Date Year of purchase Computers Number Total computers in
    building
                                              GAO assessment (1- 3 scale) and
    Modernization          Scale           description
                                                 Principal assessment (1-5 scale)
                                                                              and
    School supplies        Scale           description
    Library                Number          Number of books
    Parental involvement
                                                 Principal assessment (1-5 scale)
                                                                              and
    School activities      Scale           description
    Donate/raise money     Yes/no          Principal assessment
    Volunteer              Yes/no          Principal assessment
    PTA participation      Yes/no          Principal assessment

    Note: Scale is a subjective assessment.

    a

    Special classrooms include gymnasium, auditorium, cafeteria, art room,
    music room, science room, and gardens, and were separately noted.

    Source: GAO site visit data collection protocol.

    For each metropolitan area, per-pupil spending3 for each of the three
    inner city schools and three suburban schools were ordered and paired,
    that is, the lowest spending inner city school was paired with the lowest
    spending suburban school, the middle spending inner city school was paired
    with the middle spending suburban school, and the highest spending inner
    city school was paired with the highest spending suburban school.

    3

    Spending includes personnel salaries, building maintenance and repair, and
    educational materials and supplies. Some expenditures, such as
    transportation and district overhead, are, therefore, not included in
    spending.

    Page 36 GAO-03-234 Inner City Schools

    To examine factors that explained differences in school spending, we
    conducted regression analysis. Regression analysis is a statistical
    methodology that measures the relationship between one variable and one or
    more other variables.

    In our regression model, we tried to determine the extent to which total
    per-pupil spending at a selected individual school could be explained by

    (1) average teacher salary at the school, (2) adjusted student-teacher
    ratio at the school,4 (3) the ratio of students to student support staff
    at the school, and (4) annual spending at the school on building
    maintenance and repair.

    The variables in the model were defined as follows:

         o Total per-pupil spending-total dollars spent by the school in the
           2000-01 school year divided by total enrollment.5
         o Average teacher salary-total salary expenditure for teachers at the
           school divided by the number of teachers. Teacher salary was used in
           the regression to capture the salary structure at the school.6
         o Adjusted student-teacher ratio-total enrollment adjusted for students
           with special educational needs divided by the total certified
           instructional staff. Adjusted enrollment differed from total
           enrollment in that the adjusted enrollment included an additional
           weight of 100 percent for each child receiving special education
           instruction at the school and 50 percent for students with limited
           English proficiency. Adjusted enrollment was used to capture the
           direct higher spending by the school for students with special needs.
           Teachers included: regular classroom teachers, special education
           teachers, teachers of students with limited English proficiency, art
           teachers, music teachers, physical education teachers, reading
           teachers, teachers for the gifted and

    4

    Enrollment was weighted to account for students with disabilities and
    students with limited English proficiency in order to more accurately
    gauge the school's student-teacher ratio.

    5

    Total enrollment was calculated as the enrollment of the school on October
    1, 2000.

    6

    It was assumed that across schools the salaries of other employees in the
    school would be "structurally" related to the salaries of teachers. That
    is, if teachers at a particular school earn on average a higher salary,
    then other employees at the school, such as operations staff and
    administrators, would similarly earn higher salaries.

    talented, science teachers, and computer laboratory teachers.7 Teaching
    assistants and paraprofessionals were not included because their direct
    involvement with instruction was not always certain.

         o The ratio of students to student support staff at the school was
           computed by dividing the total enrollment by the total certified
           professional staff. Support staff was not adjusted for students with
           special needs because it was assumed that at the school level support
           staff to student time is less dependent upon the disability of the
           child. Total certified professional staff included: administrators,
           health providers, and certified staff providing services to students.8
         o Spending on building maintenance and repair at the school included
           contracted maintenance and repair and salary expenditures for building
           custodians and maintenance workers for the 2000-01 school year. (See
           table 8 for the regression results for factors explaining differences
           in per-pupil spending at the selected schools.)

    7

    Classroom and instructional-service paraprofessionals were not included.

    8

    Operation staff and clerical staff were not included.

    Table 8: Regression Results for Factors Explaining Differences in
    Per-Pupil Spending at Selected Schools

          Independent variable Coefficient Standard error t-score Significance

    Constant 3024.888 678.076 4.461

                       Teacher salary 7.718E-02 .011 7.295 .000a

    Weighted student teacher-89.375 30.934 -2.889 .007a ratio

                 Student-support staff ratio -5.134 2.165 -2.372 .024a

                    Maintenance and repair 2.067E-03 .001 1.988 .055

    Dependent variable: Per-pupil spending R = 0.854 F = 21.536 sig. = 0.000

    aS

    ignificant at the 0.05 level. Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Appendix II presents selected data on the 42 schools examined in the seven
    metropolitan areas, as well as additional information obtained from site
    visits at 24 schools.

    Appendix II: School Profiles

    This appendix contains three tables of school-level information collected
    from selected inner city and suburban schools in seven metropolitan areas.
    Table 9 contains student characteristic information. Student
    characteristic information includes enrollment, child poverty measured by
    the census, percent of students with disabilities, percent of students
    with limited English proficiency, and percent of children that are
    minority.

    Table 10 contains actual spending per child, then spending per child at
    low, medium, and high weights for selected schools in seven metropolitan
    areas. Table 11 includes information on the percent of first-year
    teachers, federal dollars per child, and federal dollars as a percent of
    total spending.

    Table 9: School-Level Student Characteristics for Selected Schools in
    Seven Metropolitan Areas
                                                                     Percent with
    Metropolitan  Inner              Percent Percent with   limited    Percent
                     city/               child                 English
    area         suburban Enrollment poverty disabilities proficiency minority
    Oakland       Inner          745      45            5          64      100
                      city
    Oakland       Inner          312      50            9          73       97
                      city
    Oakland       Inner        1,238      47            6          41      100
                      city
    Oakland       Suburb         402       8            8          15       64
    Oakland       Suburb         877       8            0           4       38
    Oakland       Suburb         460       8            8           3       16
    St. Louis     Inner          163      85           12           0      100
                      city
    St. Louis     Inner          292      55           13           0      100
                      city
    St. Louis     Inner          499      55            8           0       90
                      city
    St. Louis     Suburb         602      11           18           3        2
    St. Louis     Suburb         391      11            5           0        8
    St. Louis     Suburb         459       9           11           1        1
    Fort Worth    Inner          760      52            6          17       79
                      City
    Fort Worth    Inner          555      51            3          10       99
                      city
    Fort Worth    Inner          937      51            3          15       94
                      city
    Fort Worth    Suburb         413      12           18           2       11
    Fort Worth    Suburb         392      12            6           5       14
    Fort Worth    Suburb         373      14           17          13       85
    New York      Inner          484      56            9          22      100
                      city
    New York      Inner          645      52           11          18       98
                      city
    New York      Inner          630      43            6           3      100
                      city
    New York      Suburb         457       5           16           9       28
    New York      Suburb         553       5            9           3      n/a
    New York      Suburb         536       5            9           0        4
    Boston        Inner          712      51           21           0       96
                      city
    Boston        Inner          193      50            9           0       99
                      city
    Boston        Inner          250      49           17          12       71
                      city
    Boston        Suburb         386       7           12           0        3
    Boston        Suburb         979       7           15           0        1
    Boston        Suburb         335       7            8           3        3
    Denver        Inner          562      52           12          52       94
                      city
    Denver        Inner          372      52           13          19       94
                      city
    Denver        Inner          468      51           12          32       94
                      city
    Denver        Suburb         407       9           13           0        7
    Denver        Suburb         292      10            8          11       51
    Denver        Suburb         623      11            6          10       41
    Chicago       Inner          466      59            9           0      100
                      city
    Chicago       Inner          900      59           14           5       50
                      city
    Chicago       Inner          692      59           12           0      100
                      city
    Chicago       Suburb         503       5           17           1       11

                                                                     Percent with
    Metropolitan  Inner              Percent Percent with   limited    Percent
                     city/               child                 English
    area         suburban Enrollment poverty disabilities proficiency minority
    Chicago       Suburb         401       5            8           2        8
    Chicago       Suburb         280       5            6           5       13

                              Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Table 10: Spending Per Pupil and Spending Per Pupil at Low, Medium, and
    High Weights for Selected Schools in Seven Metropolitan Areas

    Spending Metropolitan Inner city/ per pupil area suburban (unweighted)

             Spending Spending Spending per pupil, low per pupil, per pupil, high
                                                      weight medium weight weight

                    Oakland Inner city 1 $4,022 $3,313 $2,442 $1,939

                    Oakland Inner city 2 $4,100 $3,226 $2,321 $1,818

                    Oakland Inner city 3 $2,810 $2,340 $1,804 $1,471

                       Oakland Suburb $4,975 $4,498 $4,104 $3,778

                       Oakland Suburb $2,470 $2,421 $2,316 $2,220

                       Oakland Suburb $4,849 $4,454 $4,223 $4,016

                    St. Louis Inner city $5,337 $4,168 $3,244 $2,656

                    St. Louis Inner city $6,311 $5,144 $4,287 $3,675

                    St Louis Inner city $3,162 $2,675 $2,230 $1,912

                      St. Louis Suburb $4,395 $3,705 $3,444 $3,218

                      St. Louis Suburb $3,467 $3,240 $3,085 $2,943

                      St. Louis Suburb $3,106 $2,769 $2,620 $2,486

                   Fort Worth Inner city $2,984 $2,542 $2,049 $1,718

                   Fort Worth Inner city $3,282 $2,879 $2,364 $2,007

                   Fort Worth Inner city $3,058 $2,658 $2,157 $1,817

                     Fort Worth Suburb $4,040 $3,396 $3,156 $2,947

                     Fort Worth Suburb $4,391 $4,060 $3,777 $3,534

                     Fort Worth Suburb $4,246 $3,546 $3,180 $2,885

                    New York Inner city $7,263 $5,966 $4,704 $3,887

                    New York Inner city $6,057 $4,929 $3,956 $3,307

                    New York Inner city $5,904 $5,150 $4,401 $3,843

                      New York Suburb $6,566 $5,616 $5,218 $4,877

                      New York Suburb $8,637 $7,874 $7,523 $7,205

                      New York Suburb $7,218 $6,623 $6,390 $6,173

                     Boston Inner city $6,731 $5,197 $4,366 $3,764

                     Boston Inner city $4,998 $4,223 $3,567 $3,087

                     Boston Inner city $5,770 $4,568 $3,752 $3,185

                       Boston Suburb $4,277 $3,802 $3,638 $3,487

                       Boston Suburb $4,433 $3,863 $3,683 $3,519

                       Boston Suburb $4,737 $4,357 $4,149 $3,962

                     Denver Inner city $3,240 $2,537 $1,898 $1,520

                     Denver Inner city $3,865 $3,113 $2,495 $2,084

                     Denver Inner city $3,852 $3,089 $2,410 $1,979

                       Denver Suburb $3,313 $2,931 $2,783 $2,649

                       Denver Suburb $5,404 $4,894 $4,496 $4,161

                       Denver Suburb $2,810 $2,578 $2,374 $2,202

                     Chicago Inner city $4,482 $3,743 $3,089 $2,629

                     Chicago Inner city $4,529 $3,615 $2,948 $2,490

                     Chicago Inner city $3,595 $2,939 $2,425 $2,065

                       Chicago Suburb $3,975 $3,430 $3,274 $3,132

                                    Spending  Spending     Spending      Spending
    Metropolitan Inner city/    per pupil per pupil,  per pupil,    per pupil,
                                                low                          high
    area          suburban   (unweighted)     weight   medium           weight
                                                          weight
    Chicago      Suburb            $3,053     $2,812      $2,705        $2,606
    Chicago      Suburb            $3,216     $2,996      $2,858        $2,734

                              Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Table 11: Percent of First-Year Teachers, Federal Dollars Per Pupil, and
    Federal Dollars as a Percent of Total Spending at Selected Schools in
    Seven Metropolitan Areas

    Metropolitan Inner city/ area suburban

    Percent Federal Federal dollars first year dollars as percent of teachers
    per pupil total spending

    Oakland Inner city 12 $455

    Oakland Inner city 6 $745

    Oakland Inner city 12 $294

    Oakland Suburb 0 $179

    Oakland Suburb 15 $17

    Oakland Suburb 0 $10

    St. Louis Inner city 0 $1,493

    St. Louis Inner city 16 $2,581

    St Louis Inner city 11 $875

    St. Louis Suburb 5 $193

    St. Louis Suburb 17 $106

    St. Louis Suburb 4 $107

    Fort Worth Inner city 11 $510

    Fort Worth Inner city 4 $966

    Fort Worth Inner city 11 $586

    Fort Worth Suburb 19 $313

    Fort Worth Suburb 4 $189

    Fort Worth Suburb 18 $591

    aa

    New York Inner city a

    aa

    New York Inner city 24

    New York Inner city 13 $669

    New York Suburb 0 $268

    New York Suburb 3 $180

    New York Suburb 0 $14

    Boston Inner city 12 $448

    Boston Inner city 31 $329

    Boston Inner city 6 $578

    Boston Suburb 0 $130

    Boston Suburb 0 $169

    Boston Suburb 0 $117

    Denver Inner city 9 $673

    Denver Inner city 0 $428

    Denver Inner city 19 $716

    Denver Suburb 19 $111

    Denver Suburb 14 $129

    Denver Suburb 8 $93

    Chicago Inner city 15 $623

    Chicago Inner city 8 $480

    Chicago Inner city 6 $659

                                            Percent    Federal    Federal dollars
    Metropolitan    Inner city/     first year         dollars   as percent of
    area              suburban       teachers      per pupil    total spending
    Chicago        Suburb                      0          $228               6
    Chicago        Suburb                      0          $263               9
    Chicago        Suburb                      0           $71               2

    a

    Data not provided by the New York schools. Source: GAO's data analysis.

    Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    Harriet Ganson, (202) 512-7042

      GAO Contacts

    Peter Minarik, (202) 512-7230

    In addition to those named above, Elisabeth Anderson, Shannon McKay,

    Eve Veliz, and Sarit Weisburd made key contributions to this report. Luann
    Moy provided important methodological contributions to the review of the
    research. Patrick DiBattista also provided key technical assistance.

    (130111)

      GAO's Mission

    The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists
    to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to
    help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government
    for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
    federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and
    other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and
    funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its
    core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

      Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
    and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
    archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
    you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
    documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
    Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
    To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
    select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products" under
    the GAO Reports heading.

                                 Order by Mail or Phone

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to:

    U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
    20548

    To order by Phone:   Voice:   (202) 512-6000
                             TDD:    (202) 512-2537
                           Fax:      (202) 512-6061

      To Report Fraud, Contact:

    Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

      Federal Programs

    Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
    General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
    20548
    *** End of document. ***