School-Age Children: Poverty and Diversity Challenge Schools Nationwide
(Letter Report, 04/29/94, GAO/HEHS-94-132).
During the 1980s, an increasing number of America's school-age children
was poor, more racially and ethnically diverse, and at risk for school
failure. These problems were not limited to the largest cities or a few
states or geographic areas. The growing number of poor and at-risk
children means that many schools will have to address the needs of
children who change schools frequently; are potentially low achievers;
and have other difficulties, such as health and nutrition problems.
Addressing the needs of children from a multitude of language and
cultural backgrounds also poses a growing educational challenge for
school districts. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--the
federal government's main vehicle for addressing the needs of poor and
at-risk children--will also face increasing demands as the number of
these children increases. Ignoring these demands now may cause greater
problems later as needy children potentially face a future of
joblessness and lower incomes. Addressing these demands during a period
of budgetary constraints will be difficult, however, and will challenge
lawmakers and school officials to make every dollar count.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-94-132
TITLE: School-Age Children: Poverty and Diversity Challenge
Schools Nationwide
DATE: 04/29/94
SUBJECT: Educational programs
Children
Disadvantaged persons
Elementary education
Secondary education
Demographic data
Aid for education
Compensatory education
Minorities
Immigrants
IDENTIFIER: Dept. of Education Chapter 1 Program for Educationally
Disadvantaged Children
Dept. of Education Emergency Immigrant Education Act Program
Suffolk County (MA)
Mississippi
Kentucky
West Virginia
California
Texas
New York
Illinois
Florida
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed 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. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
April 1994
SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN - POVERTY AND
DIVERSITY CHALLENGE SCHOOLS
NATIONWIDE
GAO/HEHS-94-132
School-Age Children
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CPS - Current Population Survey
ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
LEP - limited English proficiency
LI - linguistically isolated
PES - Post Enumeration Survey
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-256807
April 29, 1994
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate
The Honorable Claiborne Pell
Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate
The face of school-age America is changing dramatically, with more
children living in poverty and a rapidly growing number from diverse
racial and ethnic backgrounds. These children are more likely than
others to be at risk of academic failure. Addressing the needs of
these children while striving to meet higher education standards and
the national education goals\1 will pose increasing challenges for
policymakers and school officials, especially in a time of tight
budgets.
In light of these concerns and the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, you requested that we
examine changes in key demographic characteristics of school-age
children between 1980 and 1990 and the problems such changes signal
for schools. We testified on these issues before your Committee and
Subcommittee on March 16, 1994, and this report presents our findings
and additional data related to school-age children.
--------------------
\1 In 1990, the President and governors agreed on six goals for the
nation's education system to be reached by the year 2000. They
include, for example, having all students achieving at high standards
in five core academic subjects.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
During the 1980s an increasing number of our nation's school-age
children\2 were poor, more racially and ethnically diverse, and at
risk for school failure. The problems facing school-age America were
not limited to our nation's large cities or a few states or
geographic areas. Poor school-age children were found in
concentrations across the country, in the Northeast as well as the
South, and in rural as well as urban areas.\3 While these pockets
were located throughout the country, between 1980 and 1990, the
number of poor school-age children increased significantly in the
West and the Southwest. During this same period, areas throughout
the country experienced a dramatic increase in the number of at-risk
children.\4
These changes among school-age children signal extraordinary problems
for schools across the nation. The growing number of poor and
at-risk children means that many schools will have to address the
needs of children who change schools frequently, are potential low
achievers, and have other difficulties such as health and nutrition
problems. Addressing the needs of children from a multitude of
language and cultural backgrounds also poses a growing educational
challenge for school districts.
ESEA--the federal government's primary vehicle for addressing the
needs of poor and at-risk children--will also face increasing demands
as the number of these children increases. Ignoring these demands
now may cause greater problems later as needy children face a
potential future of joblessness and lower incomes. Addressing these
demands during a time of budget austerity will be difficult, however,
and will challenge lawmakers and school officials to make every
dollar count.
--------------------
\2 School-age children are children ages 5 to 17 living in families.
Families are defined as households in which one or more persons are
related. We chose this population because it is the same population
used in ESEA's Title 1, Chapter 1, allocation formula.
\3 We analyzed the data by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan county
classifications but substituted the terms urban and rural,
respectively. We selected these geographic classifications because
they are at the county level, and Chapter 1 funds are allocated
according to county-level poverty statistics.
\4 At-risk children are those who, while not necessarily poor, face
significant obstacles to achieving academic success in school. In
this report, the term refers to children who live in immigrant
families or linguistically isolated households, and children with
limited English proficiency.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Poor children and those with limited English proficiency (LEP) are
more likely than others to experience academic failure, and the
consequences of this failure follow them for their whole lives.
These children are more likely to drop out of school, for example,
and high school dropouts are more likely than high school graduates
to be arrested and to become unmarried parents. These negative
consequences not only harm the individual but also society in terms
of higher crime and unemployment and a lower quality of life.
High concentrations of poverty present additional problems for
schools. Research has shown that greater concentrations of poor
children are associated with lower academic performance, magnifying
the risk of academic failure.
Recognizing the links of these factors to academic achievement, the
federal government provides educational assistance to poor and other
at-risk populations through a variety of programs. Many of these
programs are part of ESEA, which specifies 46 programs that provide
financial aid to meet the educational needs of the nation's children.
In fiscal year 1994, the Congress appropriated about $8.6 billion
under ESEA.
The largest of ESEA's programs is Chapter 1, Part A, of Title I.
Chapter 1 targets financial aid through states to local educational
agencies to assist educationally disadvantaged students attending
schools with concentrations of low-income students. In fiscal year
1994, close to $7 billion was available through Chapter 1.
ESEA also provides other, smaller, programs to assist at-risk
children. For example, Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act,
provides financial assistance to local education agencies to develop
bilingual education programs. The Emergency Immigrant Education
Program under Title IV provides supplementary educational services to
immigrant children enrolled in elementary and secondary schools.
Programs for migrant children under Chapter 1, Part D, provide grants
to state educational agencies for programs to meet the educational
needs of these children. Funding for these three and other ESEA
programs totaled more than $1.6 billion in fiscal year 1994.
The Congress is currently considering proposals for reauthorizing
ESEA. These proposals intend to make ESEA a vehicle for raising
educational standards for all children and reforming schools. They
increase the amount of Chapter 1 funding directed towards areas with
higher concentrations of poor school children. The proposals also
include modifications of Chapter 1 to facilitate greater
participation of LEP children and changes in the Bilingual Education
Act that would seek to strengthen the act in many ways, including
fostering the professional development of teachers.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Our analysis is derived from a special tabulation of data from the
1980 and 1990 decennial censuses that we obtained from the Bureau of
the Census in December 1992. The tabulation contains detailed
information about children and their families, including race and
ethnicity, family income, ability to speak English, and immigration
status. The tabulation includes this information for all counties in
the United States, which are classified as metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan, and the data can be aggregated by metropolitan area,
state, region, and the nation.\5
Because the special tabulation is determined from the detailed sample
files of the 1980 and 1990 decennial censuses, the data we present
have associated sampling errors. Sampling errors were estimated at
the 95-percent confidence level, and, generally, the sampling errors
of national and state data did not exceed 1 percent.\6
Data points used in this report appear in appendix I. Tables
containing additional data on school-age children appear in appendix
II. We conducted our reviews between September 1992 and March 1994
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\5 For further details on the content of the special tabulation and
definitions of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan classifications, see
appendix II of School-Age Demographics: Recent Trends Pose New
Educational Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug. 5, 1993).
\6 The 95-percent confidence level means that the chances are about
19 out of 20 that the actual number or percentage being estimated
falls within the range defined by our estimate, plus or minus the
sampling error. For example, if we estimated that 30 percent of a
group has a particular characteristic and the sampling error is 1
percentage point, there is a 95-percent chance that the actual
percentage is between 29 and 31.
NUMBER OF POOR SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN INCREASED BETWEEN 1980
AND 1990 EVEN THOUGH THE TOTAL
NUMBER DECLINED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Between 1980 and 1990, the number of poor school-age children
increased by more than 400,000 to 7.6 million. This occurred even as
the total school-age population declined by 5 percent, or 2.3
million, to 44.4 million (see fig. 1). Because of both changes, the
national poverty rate for school-age children--the percentage of all
school-age children who live in poor families--increased from 15.3
percent in 1980 to 17.1 percent in 1990. The poverty rate for all
children has continued to increase since 1990. Recent evidence
suggests that since 1990 both the total school-age population and the
number of poor children have increased.\7
Figure 1: Number of Poor
School-Age Children Increased
Although the Total Number of
School-Age Children Declined
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\7 The increase in the number of all poor children is derived from
the Bureau of the Census' 1992 Current Population Survey (CPS).
Poverty rates determined from CPS data, however, are not directly
comparable to our decennial census data because CPS does not collect
annual data on school-age children.
POOR CHILDREN REMAINED
CONCENTRATED IN POCKETS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Large numbers of poor school-age children remained in areas that
traditionally have had high concentrations of such children,
including large cities in the East and South, rural counties, and the
South. Overall, about 50 percent of all poor school-age children
lived in either counties containing the nation's 25 largest cities or
in rural counties. Urban and rural areas also exhibited high poverty
rates. In 1990, the counties containing the nation's 25 largest
cities registered a collective school-age poverty rate of 21.6
percent, while all rural counties registered a poverty rate of 20.4
percent.
Urban school-age poverty also remained regionally concentrated. Of
the 10 cities with the highest 1990 school-age poverty rates, 7 were
located in either the East or the South (see fig. 2). For example,
the poverty rate for Suffolk County, which contains the city of
Boston, registered a poverty rate of 27.4 percent--over 10 points
above the national average.
Figure 2: Seven of the 10
Cities With the Highest 1990
School-Age Poverty Rates
Located in the East and South
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Southern states continued to have some of the highest school-age
poverty rates in the nation. In Mississippi, for example, in 1990
about one-third of all children were poor, almost twice the national
average. Of the 10 states with the highest school-age poverty rates
in the nation, 8 were located either in the South or were "border"
states such as Kentucky and West Virginia (see fig. 3). Further,
poverty rates increased in 7 of these 8 "high poverty" states during
the 1980s.
Figure 3: Eight of the 10
States With the Highest 1990
School-Age Poverty Rates Were
in the South or in "Border"
States
(See figure in printed
edition.)
NUMBER OF POOR SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN INCREASED
SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE WEST AND
SOUTHWEST
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
The number of poor school-age children grew substantially in the West
and Southwest during the 1980s. Of the 12 states where the number of
poor school-age children increased by more than 25 percent, 11 were
located in the West and Southwest (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Growth in School-Age
Poverty Was Substantial in the
West and the Southwest
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Poverty rates in all 12 of these states grew more than the national
rate, as did the concentration of total school-age poverty.
California and Texas, the two states with the largest number of poor
school-age children in 1990, also registered the largest numerical
increases in poor school-age children between 1980 and 1990.
Together, these two states gained almost 467,000 poor children.
POOR SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN BECAME
MORE RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY
DIVERSE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Similar to the total school-age population, poor school-age children
became more racially and ethnically diverse.\8 The number of poor
Hispanic children grew by over 43 percent, increasing by 481,000 to
1.6 million, and the number of poor Asian children more than doubled,
increasing by 118,000 to 228,000. However, the number of poor white
children declined by 5.9 percent, and the number of poor black
children showed little change, falling by about 1 percent.
While the number of black children showed little change, this group
experienced the highest rates of school-age poverty in both urban and
rural areas. The poverty rate for black children ranged from 36
percent in urban counties to 47 percent in rural counties. Except
for Asian children, rural children of each race and ethnic group had
the highest school-age poverty rates.
--------------------
\8 We based our designations for race and ethnicity on the 1990
decennial Census question regarding Hispanic origin. The categories
"white," "black," "Asian," and "American Indian/other" refer only to
non-Hispanic members of these racial groups. All Hispanics,
regardless of race, are included in the Hispanic category.
DRAMATIC INCREASE IN NUMBER OF
AT-RISK CHILDREN THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
The number of children from at-risk groups, such as immigrant
households, linguistically isolated (LI) households, and LEP
children, grew substantially during the 1980s.\9 Although in 1990
their numbers remained fairly small--between 1.7 million to 2.3
million children or between 4 and 5 percent of all school-age
children--each group increased by at least 20 percent during the
1980s.\10
For example, the number of children living in immigrant households
rose by 24 percent during the decade, and the number of LEP children
grew by almost 26 percent.
Large numbers of these at-risk populations were scattered in counties
throughout the country. In 1990, about one-sixth of all counties
(533 out of 3,140) located in 47 states had school-age populations
where at least 500 children or 5 percent of all children were LEP
(see fig. 5). Within these LEP concentrations, there also was
considerable linguistic diversity. Almost one-third of the 533
counties had 10 or more languages represented.
However, significant numbers of at-risk children lived in only a few
states. For example, California and Texas contained almost 50
percent of the nation's LEP children in 1990, and California alone
accounted for nearly 40 percent of the national school-age immigrant
population. New York, Illinois, and Florida also experienced
significant concentrations of at-risk school-age children.
Figure 5: More Than 500
Counties Had Substantial
Numbers of LEP Students in 1990
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Shaded areas indicate
the 533 counties in which at
least 5 percent or 500 students
were LEP, according to 1990
decennial Census data. We
chose 500 because this
definition parallels the
Emergency Immigrant Education
Program under Title IV, which
provides funds to districts if
500 or more (or 3 percent or
more) of the students are
immigrants who have been
attending U.S. schools for
fewer than 3 academic years.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\9 Children from immigrant families are children who are foreign born
or native born in families with a mother who came to the United
States during the 10 years before the decennial Census. The Census
Bureau classifies the ability to speak English into five categories:
"speak English only," "speak English very well," "speak English
well," "do not speak English well," and "do not speak English at
all." Children in LI households are those living in households where
no person 14 years or older speaks "English only" or no person 14
years or older who speaks a language other than English speaks
"English very well." LEP Children are those in the last three
categories.
\10 The immigrant, LI, and LEP populations are not additive because
some children fall into more than one of the categories. In 1990,
over 686,000 school-age children were in all three categories but 2.3
million children--over 5 percent of all school-age children--were in
one of the three categories exclusively.
CHANGES IN SCHOOL-AGE
POPULATIONS SIGNAL
EXTRAORDINARY PROBLEMS FOR
SCHOOLS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
The recent increases in the number of poor and at-risk school-age
children pose problems for many schools across the nation.
Compounding these problems is the increased mobility associated with
poor and at-risk children. Because of the growing number of poor
children, schools must contend with more children who are potential
low achievers and have other difficulties. The diversity of poor and
at-risk children could require schools to consider new educational
strategies as well.
SCHOOLS FACE DIFFICULTIES IN
EDUCATING CHILDREN WHO
CHANGE SCHOOLS FREQUENTLY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
Poor and at-risk children face many difficulties in achieving
academic success. One problem, for example, is the greater tendency
for these children to change schools frequently. We found that one
in six of the nation's third-graders changed schools frequently,
attending at least three different schools since the beginning of
first grade. These proportions were even greater for poor and some
at-risk children.\11 Such change can disrupt children's educational
programs, making learning and achievement difficult. Children who
change schools frequently also are more likely to have behavior
problems and have more problems related to nutrition and health than
children who change schools less frequently. We reported that 41
percent of the children who changed schools frequently read below
their grade level, compared with 26 percent of those third-graders
who have never changed schools.
--------------------
\11 See Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently,
Harming Their Education (GAO/HEHS-94-45, Feb. 4, 1994).
CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
GREATER IN SCHOOLS WITH HIGH
POVERTY CONCENTRATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.2
Our findings on the composition of school-age America also have
implications for schools with high concentrations of poor children.
We reported that schools with large numbers of poor children have a
disproportionately higher share of low achievers than schools with
fewer children in poverty.\12 One study recently reported that
children in high-poverty schools were also more likely to have been
retained in grade at some time during their school career and have
higher rates of absenteeism.\13 Teachers in these schools are more
likely to report that their students have difficulties that may
affect their ability to perform in school, including health/hygiene
problems and inadequate nutrition or rest. Because poor school-age
children have become increasingly concentrated, many schools serve
more low-achieving children than ever before and, thus, will have to
serve children with more needs than ever before.
--------------------
\12 See Remedial Education: Modifying Chapter 1 Formula Would Target
More Funds to Those Most in Need (GAO/HRD-92-16, July 28, 1992).
\13 Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational
Growth and Opportunity, The Interim Report, U.S. Department of
Education (1993).
MANY SCHOOL DISTRICTS FACE A
GROWING EDUCATIONAL
CHALLENGE IN MEETING LEP
CHILDREN'S NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.3
The nation's ability to achieve the national education goals is
increasingly dependent on local districts' ability to educate
children who are at-risk, such as immigrant, LEP, and LI children.
Districts that serve large numbers of LEP children are in almost
every state in the nation. They face a multitude of challenges
beyond the obvious one of the language barrier because LEP children
are often poor and have significant social, health, and emotional
needs.
We found that many districts are struggling to educate large numbers
of LEP children who also are linguistically and culturally
diverse.\14 Some districts have difficulties in obtaining sufficient
numbers of bilingual teachers and material in most languages. This
situation was particularly true when student populations were diverse
in language; one district that reported such difficulty, for example,
had students from almost 90 different language backgrounds.
--------------------
\14 See Limited English Proficiency: A Growing and Costly
Educational Challenge Facing Many School Districts (GAO/HEHS-94-38,
Jan. 28, 1994).
IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION
POLICY
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10
Ignoring these demographic changes--the growing number of poor and
at-risk children in many parts of the nation--could mean a grim
future for America and its children. To address these changes,
policymakers and school officials will have to develop new strategies
to assist poor and at-risk children to achieve at the high levels
that will be demanded by new education standards. For example,
schools will have to develop new ways to address the educational
disruption experienced by children who change schools frequently, as
well as the needs of children from varying languages and backgrounds.
ESEA, as the federal government's primary vehicle for addressing the
educational needs of poor and at-risk children, will play an
important role in the national response to the changes we have
identified. As more schools serve growing numbers of needy children,
they may require more Chapter 1 funds to serve them. In addition,
many schools are facing large increases in LEP children even as
federal funding has not kept pace in real terms. The Congress will
encounter difficulty, however, assisting schools with many poor and
at-risk children, given current fiscal constraints. This will
challenge lawmakers and school officials to ensure that every dollar
spent on education is spent wisely.
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1
As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of
this report until 5 days after its issue date. At that time, we will
send copies to the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and
Education and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others on request.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at
(202) 512-7014. Other major contributors to this report are listed
in appendix III.
Linda G. Morra
Director, Education
and Employment Issues
DATA POINTS FOR FIGURES IN LETTER
=========================================================== Appendix I
Table I.1
Data for Figure 1: Change in School-Age
Population, by Poverty Status, 1980-90
Change,
1980 1990 1980-90
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
Poor 7,152,784 7,571,259 418,475
Nonpoor 39,533,403 36,795,019 -
2,738,384
============================================================
Total 46,686,187 44,366,278 -
2,319,909
------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.2
Data for Figure 2: Ten Cities
(Metropolitan Counties) With the Highest
School-Age Poverty Rates, 1990
Cities (counties)\a with highest school-age School-age
poverty rates\ poverty rate
-------------------------------------------- --------------
New Orleans (Orleans Parish) 45.1
El Paso 35.1
Baltimore City 31.2
New York City (5 counties) 29.6
Philadelphia 29.3
Detroit (Wayne) 28.2
Boston (Suffolk) 27.4
\San Antonio (Bexar) 27.0
Memphis (Shelby) 25.3
Washington, D.C. 24.1
============================================================
National average 17.1
------------------------------------------------------------
\a The name of the county is in parentheses except where there is
more than one county or if the county has the same name as the city.
Table I.3
Data for Figure 3: Ten States With the
Highest School-Age Poverty Rates, 1990
States with highest school-age poverty School-age
rates\ poverty rate
-------------------------------------------- --------------
Alabama 23.3
Arizona 20.3
Arkansas 23.8
Kentucky 23.3
Louisiana 30.4
Mississippi 32.7
New Mexico 26.4
\South Carolina 20.0
Texas 23.4
West Virginia 24.1
------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.4
Data for Figure 4: Percent Change in
State School-Age Poverty Rate, 1990
0-to
Percent 24.99% Over 25%
State decrease State increase State increase
------------- ---------- ------------- ---------- -------------- ----------
Alabama -10.1 Alaska 6.9 Arizona 51.7
Arkansas -4.1 Florida 10.9 California 37.8
Connecticut -22.9 Idaho 14.3 Colorado 30.2
Delaware -31.8 Indiana 1.4 Montana 39.2
Georgia -8.2 Iowa 0.8 Nevada 57.4
Hawaii -10.6 Kansas 20.6 New Mexico 28.0
Illinois -2.4 Louisiana 20.7 Oklahoma 29.2
Kentucky -3.8 Michigan 13.4 Texas 38.5
Maine -25.9 Minnesota 15.1 Utah 45.1
Maryland -20.8 Missouri 8.0 Washington 31.8
Massachusetts -20.1 North Dakota 5.2 Wisconsin 26.4
Mississippi -1.4 Ohio 15.5 Wyoming 65.6
Nebraska -1.2 Oregon 22.8
New Hampshire -30.0 West Virginia 6.7
New Jersey -33.5
New York -15.2
North -18.4
Carolina
Pennsylvania -8.4
Rhode Island -17.3
South -8.9
Carolina
South Dakota -6.5
Tennessee -12.9
Vermont -23.9
Virginia -18.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN
========================================================== Appendix II
Table II.1
Number of Poor School-Age Children and
Poverty Rates in 1980 and 1990, for the
Counties Containing the 25 Largest
Cities in 1990
City
(county)\a 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990
------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------- --------
New York 392,393 341,655 1,278,303 1,155,197 30.70 29.58
City: total
(Bronx) 102,367 92,846 247,972 223,558 41.28 41.53
(Kings) 161,749 138,818 452,062 419,298 35.78 33.11
(New York) 64,962 60,322 179,995 163,752 36.09 36.84
(Queens) 55,234 42,437 321,450 283,262 17.18 14.98
(Richmond) 8,081 7,232 76,824 65,327 10.52 11.07
Los Angeles 260,128 327,370 1,440,449 1,545,639 18.06 21.18
Chicago:\b 214,519 194,235 1,219,052 1,026,808 17.60 18.92
total
(Cook) 209,859 190,250 1,074,143 885,263 19.54 21.49
(Dupage) 4,660 3,985 144,909 141,545 3.22 2.82
Houston:\b 72,266 123,991 579,782 645,174 12.46 19.22
total
(Fort Bend) 3,323 5,551 31,839 52,499 10.44 10.57
(Harris) 66,451 112,919 515,012 553,581 12.90 20.40
(Montgomery) 2,492 5,521 32,931 39,094 7.57 14.12
Philadelphia 94,565 75,226 322,972 257,225 29.28 29.25
San Diego 45,718 60,818 336,149 404,544 13.60 15.03
Detroit 99,397 110,702 505,971 391,999 19.64 28.24
(Wayne)
Dallas:\b 49,006 68,072 399,168 443,014 12.28 15.37
total
(Collin) 2,512 3,190 38,067 52,979 6.60 6.02
(Dallas) 44,193 60,863 326,598 334,086 13.53 18.22
(Denton) 1,767 3,193 29,644 49,271 5.96 6.48
(Kaufman) 256 451 1,355 1,155 18.89 39.05
(Rockwall) 278 375 3,504 5,523 7.93 6.79
Phoenix 36,992 59,115 304,423 375,915 12.15 15.73
(Maricopa)
San Antonio 57,086 65,905 229,741 243,761 24.85 27.04
(Bexar)
San Jose 21,977 24,068 262,526 239,795 8.37 10.04
(Santa
Clara)
Baltimore 49,368 37,340 155,891 119,525 31.67 31.24
City
Indianapolis 22,157 23,504 156,177 136,885 14.19 17.17
(Marion)
San 15,577 14,508 82,103 78,830 18.97 18.40
Francisco
Jacksonville 25,297 20,614 118,283 118,093 21.39 17.46
(Duval)
Milwaukee:\b 30,938 46,321 273,849 247,356 11.30 18.73
total
(Milwaukee) 27,712 43,465 183,392 167,370 15.11 25.97
(Washington) 1,028 726 21,219 19,646 4.84 3.70
(Waukesha) 2,198 2,130 69,238 60,340 3.17 3.53
Memphis 45,501 39,657 168,026 156,888 27.08 25.28
(Shelby)
Washington, 27,949 18,375 106,154 76,328 26.33 24.07
D.C.
Boston 29,623 22,931 104,793 83,741 28.27 27.38
(Suffolk)
Seattle 16,928 19,934 227,268 229,547 7.45 8.68
(King)
El Paso 35,567 48,284 122,508 137,413 29.03 35.14
Cleveland 44,384 47,435 288,429 234,939 15.39 20.19
(Cuyahoga)
Columbus:\b 25,715 28,139 191,634 179,844 13.42 15.65
total
(Fairfield) 1,706 2,167 22,209 20,561 7.68 10.54
(Franklin) 24,009 25,972 169,425 159,283 14.17 16.31
New Orleans 43,569 43,783 115,097 96,999 37.85 45.14
(Orleans
Parish)
Nashville 14,077 14,356 85,852 78,343 16.40 18.32
(Davidson)
================================================================================
Total 1,770,697 1,876,338 9,074,600 8,703,802 19.51 21.56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The name of the county is in parentheses except if the city is
located in one county and that county has the same name as the city.
\b Most of the city is located in one county: Chicago - Cook County,
Houston - Harris County,
Dallas - Dallas County, Milwaukee - Milwaukee County.
Table II.2
Change in Number of Poor Rural and Poor
Urban School-Age Children, Rural and
Urban School-Age Poverty Rates, 1980-90
Percen
t
change
,
1980-
Geographic area 1980 1990 90 1980 1990
-------------------- -------- -------- ------ ---- ----
Rural 2,141,29 2,194,08 2.47 18.6 20.4
6 8
Urban 5,011,48 5,377,17 7.3 14.3 16.0
8 1
============================================================
Total 7,152,78 7,571,25 5.85 15.3 17.1
4 9
------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3
Change in Number of Poor School-Age
Children, 1980-90, and 1990 School-Age
Poverty Rates, by State
School-age
poverty rate,
State 1980 1990 Numerical Percent 1990
------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- -------- --------------
Alabama 198,674 178,559 -20,115 -10.1 23.3
Alaska 10,207 10,910 703 6.9 9.6
Arizona 90,072 136,626 46,554 51.7 20.3
Arkansas 111,691 107,170 -4,521 -4.0 23.8
California 651,039 897,104 246,065 37.8 17.3
Colorado 63,062 82,083 19,021 30.2 13.8
Connecticut 65,610 50,611 -14,999 -22.9 9.8
Delaware 18,098 12,342 -5,756 -31.8 11.0
District of 27,949 18,375 -9,574 -34.3 24.1
Columbia
Florida 311,021 344,969 33,948 10.9 17.5
Georgia 249,998 229,402 -20,596 -8.2 18.9
Hawaii 22,721 20,316 -2,405 -10.6 10.5
Idaho 28,254 32,279 4,025 14.2 14.5
Illinois 336,783 328,801 -7,982 -2.4 15.9
Indiana 130,984 132,837 1,853 1.4 12.8
Iowa 64,847 65,378 531 0.8 12.7
Kansas 49,397 59,578 10,181 20.6 12.8
Kentucky 168,030 161,587 -6,443 -3.8 23.3
Louisiana 221,714 267,555 45,841 20.7 30.4
Maine 36,249 26,853 -9,396 -25.9 12.4
Maryland 104,310 82,612 -21,698 -20.8 10.5
Massachusetts 140,978 112,691 -28,287 -20.1 12.2
Michigan 254,479 288,557 34,078 13.4 16.7
Minnesota 80,983 93,242 12,259 15.1 11.4
Mississippi 180,439 177,895 -2,544 -1.4 32.7
Missouri 139,765 150,951 11,186 8.0 16.3
Montana 21,083 29,340 8,257 39.2 18.4
Nebraska 37,105 36,655 -450 -1.2 12.0
Nevada 14,653 23,065 8,412 57.4 11.8
New Hampshire 17,314 12,117 -5,197 -30.0 6.4
New Jersey 202,184 134,371 -67,813 -33.5 10.8
New Mexico 64,849 82,984 18,135 28.0 26.4
New York 626,784 531,845 -94,939 -15.1 18.1
North Carolina 221,699 180,954 -40,745 -18.4 16.0
North Dakota 18,941 19,931 990 5.2 15.9
Ohio 279,040 322,358 43,318 15.5 16.2
Oklahoma 92,894 120,018 27,124 29.2 19.9
Oregon 55,332 67,926 12,594 22.8 13.4
Pennsylvania 310,663 284,692 -25,971 -8.4 14.5
Rhode Island 23,353 19,306 -4,047 -17.3 12.4
South Carolina 143,925 131,053 -12,872 -8.9 20.0
South Dakota 28,336 26,501 -1,835 -6.5 18.8
Tennessee 194,569 169,437 -25,132 -12.9 19.5
Texas 573,661 794,774 221,113 38.5 23.4
Utah 33,895 49,183 15,288 45.1 10.9
Vermont 14,048 10,695 -3,353 -23.9 10.7
Virginia 158,083 129,565 -28,518 -18.0 12.5
Washington 84,403 111,198 26,795 31.8 12.8
West Virginia 74,934 79,980 5,046 6.7 24.1
Wisconsin 96,167 121,585 25,418 26.4 13.4
Wyoming 7,515 12,443 4,928 65.6 12.7
================================================================================
Total 7,152,784 7,571,259 418,475 5.9 17.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.4
Racial and Ethnic Characteristics of
Poor School-Age Children, 1980-90
School-
age
Percent poverty
change, rate,
Race/ethnicity 1980 1990 1980-90 1990
------------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------
White 3,323,29 3,128,96 -5.9 10.1
1 9
Black 2,462,66 2,436,15 -1.1 37.7
7 0
Asian 110,144 228,355 107.3 16.4
Hispanic 1,123,58 1,604,86 42.8 31.2
5 5
American Indian/ 133,097 172,920 29.9 34.4
other races
============================================================
Total 7,152,78 7,571,25 5.9 17.1
4 9
------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.5
Poverty Rates of Rural and Urban School-
Age Children, by Race and Ethnicity,
1990
Race/ethnicity Rural Urban Rural Urban
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------
White 1,314,70 1,814,26 15.1 8.2
1 8
Hispanic 208,818 1,396,04 37.5 30.4
7
Black 550,503 1,885,64 47.3 35.6
7
Asian 12,942 215,413 14.5 16.5
American Indian/ 107,124 65,796 41.5 26.8
other races
============================================================
Total 2,194,08 5,377,17 20.4 16.0
8 1
------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.6
Change in Number of School-Age Children
in Each At-Risk Group, 1980-90
Percen
At-risk group 1980 1990 Numerical t
----------------------------------------- -------- -------- --------- ------
Immigrant 1,871,79 2,319,82 448,035 23.9
1 6
Limited English proficiency 1,838,65 2,311,15 472,501 25.7
7 8
Linguistically isolated 1,440,64 1,726,82 286,186 19.9
3 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.7
Poverty Rates of At-Risk School-Age
Children, 1990
At-risk group Poverty rate
-------------------------------------------- --------------
Immigrant 30.56
Limited English proficiency 36.63
Linguistically isolated 41.26
------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
Beatrice F. Birman, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7008
Jill S. Wicinski, Evaluator-in-Charge
Charles A. Jeszeck, Assignment Manager
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
========================================================= Appendix III
Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming
Their Education (GAO/HEHS-94-45, Feb. 4, 1994).
Limited English Proficiency: A Growing and Costly Educational
Challenge Facing Many School Districts (GAO/HEHS-94-38, Jan. 28,
1994).
Rural Children: Increasing Poverty Rates Pose Educational Challenges
(GAO/HEHS-94-75BR, Jan. 11, 1994).
School Age Demographics: Recent Trends Pose New Educational
Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug. 5, 1993).
Poor Preschool-Aged Children: Numbers Increase but Most Not in
Preschool (GAO/HRD-93-111BR, July 21, 1993).
Remedial Education: Modifying Chapter 1 Formula Would Target More
Funds to Those Most in Need (GAO/HRD-92-16, July 28, 1992).