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). 

