    School Finance: State and Federal Efforts to Target Poor Students (Letter
    Report, 01/28/98, GAO/HEHS-98-36).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed state and federal
    efforts to target poor students and the funding gaps between districts
    with high and low proportions of poor students, focusing on: (1) the
    extent to which state and federal funding is targeted to districts on
    the basis of the number of poor students; and (2) the effect of state
    and federal funding on the amount of funds available to high-poverty
    compared with low-poverty districts.

    GAO noted that: (1) school finance systems in over 90 percent of the
    states had the effect targeting more state funds to districts with large
    numbers of poor students in school year 1991-92, regardless of whether
    the system explicitly intended to do so; (2) the extent of the targeting
    varied widely, however; (3) New Hampshire targeted poor students the
    most, providing an additional $6.69 per poor student for every $1
    provided to each student; school finance systems in four states
    (Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York) had the effect of targeting
    no additional funding per poor student; (4) the national average was
    $.62 in additional state funding; (5) federal funding was more targeted
    than state funding, providing an average of $4.73 in additional federal
    funding per poor student nationwide for every $1 provided for each
    student; (6) because federal funds were more targeted than state funds,
    the combination of federal and state funding increased the average
    additional funding per poor student from $.62 to $1.10 nationwide for
    every $1 provided for each student; (7) reported changes in federal
    education programs and state school finance systems since school year
    1991-92 would probably result in federal funds being more targeted than
    state funds; (8) state and federal funding reduced but did not eliminate
    the local funding gap between high- and low-poverty districts in many
    states; (9) high-poverty districts had less local funding per weighted
    pupil in 37 of the 47 states GAO analyzed; (10) when GAO added state and
    federal funds to local funds for GAO's analysis, only 21 states still
    had such funding gaps, and these gaps were smaller in each state; (11)
    nevertheless, about 64 percent of the nation's poor students live in
    these 21 states; (12) nationwide, total funding levels in low-poverty
    districts were about 15 percent more than those in high-poverty
    districts; (13) although targeting helped close the funding gap, the
    percentage of total funding from state and federal sources was more
    important in reducing the gap; and (14) gaps were smaller in states
    whose combined state and federal share of total funding was relatively
    high.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  HEHS-98-36
         TITLE:  School Finance: State and Federal Efforts to Target Poor
                 Students
          DATE:  01/28/98
       SUBJECT:  School districts
                 Federal/state relations
                 Public schools
                 Disadvantaged persons
                 Intergovernmental fiscal relations
                 Aid for education
                 Economically depressed areas
                 State/local relations
                 Students
    IDENTIFIER:  Head Start Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
    ** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
    ** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
    **                                                              **
    **                                            **
    **                                                              **
    ** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
    ******************************************************************

    Cover
    ================================================================ COVER

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    January 1998

    SCHOOL FINANCE - STATE AND FEDERAL
    EFFORTS TO TARGET POOR STUDENTS

    GAO/HEHS-98-36

    Targeting Funds to Poor Students

    (104880)

    Abbreviations
    =============================================================== ABBREV

      CCD - Common Core of Data
      HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
      USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

    Letter
    =============================================================== LETTER

    B-277125

    January 28, 1998

    The Honorable Jeff Bingaman
    The Honorable Christopher Dodd
    The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun
    United States Senate

    State and federal governments provided $146 billion for public
    elementary and secondary schools in school year 1994-95.\1 Some of
    this revenue targeted poor students.  Research has shown that these
    students generally begin school less prepared than their grade-level
    peers and need additional educational resources to succeed
    academically.  Using a variety of approaches, states have targeted
    additional funding to the growing number of poor students\2 despite
    the many other student needs to consider, such as those for students
    with disabilities.  Although providing a much smaller share of public
    school funding than states, the federal government has also targeted
    its financial aid (in fact, most of it) to disadvantaged and poor
    students through title I, child nutrition, and other programs.\3

    Despite this common commitment, little is known about the extent to
    which states target their funds to districts with poor students,
    state targeting efforts compared with federal targeting efforts, and
    the effects of these efforts.  Many policymakers have debated whether
    title I funds could be better targeted to high-poverty districts and
    schools.\4 Some have also urged consolidating some federal education
    funding into grants that give states more discretion in using these
    funds.

    In an earlier report, we examined state school finance policies for
    funding low-wealth school districts and the wealth-related funding
    gaps among districts.\5

    This report focuses on targeting to poor students and the funding
    gaps between districts with high and low proportions of poor
    students.  Specifically, you asked us to determine (1) the extent to
    which state and federal funding is targeted to districts on the basis
    of the number of poor students and (2) the effect of state and
    federal funding on the amount of funds available to high-poverty
    compared with low-poverty districts.

    To answer these questions, we relied mainly on Department of
    Education district-level data for school year 1991-92, the most
    recent available, to analyze each state except Hawaii, Vermont, and
    Wyoming.\6 We supplemented this information by interviewing state and
    federal education officials to determine how changes in the states'
    school finance systems and federal funding programs since the 1991-92
    school year would affect funding to poor students.  To measure the
    state and federal targeting efforts,\7 we developed a way to estimate
    the additional funds allocated to districts on the basis of the
    number of poor students.\8 To measure the effect of state and federal
    funding on the amount of funds available to high-poverty compared
    with low-poverty districts, we measured the relative change in
    district funding as districts' poverty rates increased.

    We adjusted our analysis to account for geographic cost differences
    in teacher salaries and for student need.\9 We accounted for revenue
    for all purposes from all sources in our funding amounts, including
    revenue for capital expenditures and debt service.  Federal revenues
    included funds from several federal agencies, including the
    Departments of Education, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services
    (HHS).\10 We measured a district's ability to raise local education
    revenues as income per pupil.\11 We used the percentage of children
    in a district living in households below the poverty level in 1989 to
    measure the percentage of poor students in a district\12 and
    enrollment as of October 1991 as the measure of a district's
    students.  We consulted with school finance experts on the
    methodology used in our review and the resulting information
    contained in this report.\13 Appendixes I to V describe our data and
    methodology in greater detail.  We conducted our work between March
    and December 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government
    auditing standards.

    --------------------
    \1 "National Public Education Financial Survey," Common Core of Data,
    U.S.  Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics (Washington, D.C.:  1996).

    \2 On the basis of census estimates, about one child in five in 1994
    lived in a family with an income below the federal poverty level, and
    the number of such children grew by about 15 percent during the first
    half of this decade.  See also School Age Demographics:  Recent
    Trends Pose New Educational Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug.  5,
    1993).

    \3 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides targeted
    programs to improve educational opportunities for students such as
    those who are poor or who have limited-English proficiency.  Title I
    of this act, the largest federal education program for elementary and
    secondary school children, is for those whose education attainment is
    below the level appropriate for their age.  It serves over 6 million
    children through supplemental instruction in reading, math, or
    language arts.  The child nutrition programs are administered by the
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) and provide funding for free and
    reduced-price meals.

    \4 A recent report on chapter 1 (now known as title I) noted that the
    program's funding goes to 93 percent of all school districts and that
    spreading these funds so widely diffuses the program's potential
    impact and limits its capacity to provide resources to the neediest
    schools.  See Targeting, Formula, and Resource Allocation Issues:
    Focusing Federal Funds Where the Needs Are Greatest, U.S.  Department
    of Education (Washington, D.C.:  1993), p.  ix.

    \5 School Finance:  State Efforts to Reduce Funding Gaps Between Poor
    and Wealthy Districts (GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.  5, 1997).  In this
    report, we found that wealthy districts on average had about 24
    percent more state and local funding per weighted pupil than poor
    districts.

    \6 We did not analyze targeting in Hawaii because the entire state is
    one district.  Nor did we analyze targeting in Vermont because
    approximately 55 percent of the federal funding was channeled through
    administrative districts excluded from our analysis.  We excluded
    Wyoming because we could not adequately model its school finance
    system.  This left 47 states in our study.  See app.  I for more
    information on the scope of our study.

    \7 Targeting in our model of state school finance systems describes
    state funding as if one portion had been allocated on the basis of a
    district's total number of students and a second portion on the basis
    of a district's number of poor students.  The targeting measure is a
    ratio of these two portions.  Specifically, for a dollar of state
    funding allocated to a district for each student, the targeted amount
    is the additional funding allocated for each poor student.  The
    targeting of federal funds is measured the same way.

    \8 This targeting measure includes the effect of funds allocated
    specifically for poor students as well as for other student groups
    that may include poor students.  This measure statistically controls
    for the effect of additional funds that states may have allocated to
    districts to compensate for localities' limited ability to raise
    revenues.

    \9 To adjust for geographic differences in resource costs by
    district, we used a national district-level teacher cost index
    recently developed for the National Center for Education Statistics.
    When adjusting for differences in student need, we adjusted a
    district's pupil count to give extra weight to poor pupils and those
    with disabilities.

    \10 We eliminated federal impact aid from the federal revenue totals
    and added this amount to local revenue totals because states consider
    the federal funding from this program part of a district's local
    education resources.  Federal revenue included the cash payments from
    USDA's child nutrition programs but excluded the value of program
    commodities.

    \11 Most school finance studies measure a district's ability to raise
    revenues for education as district wealth defined as property value
    per pupil.  We used district income defined as resident income per
    pupil, using total income data from the 1990 census, because we could
    not construct a property-
    value-per-pupil measure from the national district-level databases
    available.  The main limitation of our income measure is that it does
    not include commercial or other nonresidential income and may
    therefore understate some districts' ability to raise revenue.  For a
    more complete explanation of this measure, see GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.
    5, 1997, pp.  44-5.

    \12 According to the 1990 census, the average poverty threshold for a
    family of four was $12,674 in 1989.

    \13 School finance experts who reviewed our analysis and this report
    are William Fowler, Jr., and Martin Orland (Department of Education's
    National Center for Education Statistics); Lawrence Picus (University
    of Southern California); and Deborah Verstegen (University of
    Virginia).

       RESULTS IN BRIEF
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

    School finance systems in over 90 percent of the states had the
    effect of targeting\14 more state funds to districts with large
    numbers of poor students in school year 1991-92, regardless of
    whether the system explicitly intended to do so.  The extent of the
    targeting varied widely, however.  New Hampshire targeted poor
    students the most, providing an additional $6.69 per poor student for
    every $1 provided to each student; school finance systems in four
    states (Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York) had the effect of
    targeting no additional funding per poor student.  The national
    average was $.62 in additional state funding.  Federal funding was
    more targeted than state funding, providing an average of $4.73 in
    additional federal funding per poor student nationwide for every $1
    provided to each student.  Because federal funds were more targeted
    than state funds, the combination of federal and state funding
    increased the average additional funding per poor student from $.62
    to $1.10 nationwide for every $1 provided to each student (see fig.
    1).  Reported changes in federal education programs and state school
    finance systems since school year 1991-92 would probably result in
    federal funds being more targeted than state funds.

       Figure 1:  Average State,
       Federal, and Combined Targeting
       to Poor Students, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    State and federal funding reduced but did not eliminate the local
    funding gap between high- and low-poverty districts in many states.
    High-poverty districts had less local funding per weighted pupil in
    37 of the 47 states we analyzed.\15 When we added state and federal
    funds to local funds for our analysis, only 21 states still had such
    funding gaps, and these gaps were smaller in each state.
    Nevertheless, about 64 percent of the nation's poor students live in
    these 21 states.  Nationwide, total funding levels in low-
    poverty districts were about 15 percent more than those in high-
    poverty districts.

    Although targeting helped close the funding gap, the percentage of
    total funding from state and federal sources was more important in
    reducing the gap.  Gaps were smaller in states whose combined state
    and federal share of total funding was relatively high.  For example,
    both California and Virginia had about the same combined state and
    federal targeting rates per poor student and the same average per
    pupil funding levels.  However, California's much larger combined
    state and federal share reduced its funding gap to one that was
    smaller than Virginia's.

    --------------------
    \14 We measured targeting as a district's extra state or federal
    funding received per poor student for every dollar received for each
    student.

    \15 To account for differences in student need by district, students
    with disabilities were assigned a weight of 2.3 and poor students a
    weight of 1.6 (see apps.  I and V).

       BACKGROUND
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

    Federal, state, and local governments share the financing of our
    nation's public schools.  The federal share is the smallest,
    averaging about 7 percent of public school funding in the 1991-92
    school year.  Nationwide, the other 93 percent of funding was about
    evenly split between state and local funding (see fig.  2).  However,
    the state share of total public funding varied by state from about 9
    percent in New Hampshire to about 76 percent in New Mexico in the
    1991-92 school year.\16

       Figure 2:  Shares of Total
       Education Funding (School Year
       1991-92)

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Localities raise revenue for education mainly through property taxes,
    and the amount of local funds depends on both property values and
    local tax rates.  This has produced local funding disparities because
    school districts' property tax bases vary widely.  Localities with
    high property values can generally raise large amounts of local
    revenue per pupil even with relatively low tax rates; localities with
    low property values usually raise less local revenue per pupil even
    with higher tax rates.  In an earlier report, we found that poorer
    districts in 35 states tended to make a greater tax effort than
    wealthier districts in school year 1991-92, but this effort was not
    sufficient to eliminate the funding gaps between poor and wealthy
    districts in 23 of these states.\17

    --------------------
    \16 Our analysis excludes Hawaii, where the state provided about 92
    percent of the total funding in school year 1991-92.

    \17 See GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.  5, 1997.

          STATE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEMS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

    When allocating revenue to districts, states typically consider these
    tax base differences as well as educational need factors.  States use
    various equalization strategies to address the funding gaps that
    arise from tax base differences.  Such strategies include targeting
    more funds to districts with lower tax bases and increasing the
    state's share of total education funds.  Meanwhile, states typically
    consider districts' educational needs, including the number of pupils
    in a district, the cost of educating different types of pupils (for
    example, students with disabilities), and other educational cost
    factors beyond the districts' control such as costs related to
    sparsity or enrollment growth.

    The educational needs of poor students are one of the states'
    considerations when making funding decisions.  Poor students risk
    academic failure because their homes or communities lack the
    resources to prepare them academically and because, among other
    factors, they have considerable health and nutrition problems.
    Children living below the poverty level are more likely than nonpoor
    children to have learning disabilities and developmental delays.  As
    a result, poor students' academic achievement tends to be low, and
    they have high rates of dropping out of high school.\18

    To help low-achieving poor students, 28 states funded compensatory
    programs in school year 1993-94, according to a national study on
    school finance programs.\19 States may have funded such programs by
    directly allocating funds for this purpose, incorporating the funding
    into other programs, or including weights in their basic support
    formulas that provide funds for school districts' daily
    operations.\20 Funding for state compensatory programs that directly
    targeted poor students represented up to 11 percent of total state
    school aid.  The total spent for compensatory programs ranged from
    about $1 million in Wyoming to about $785 million in Texas in school
    year 1993-94.

    The lawsuits filed since the early 1970s challenging the
    constitutionality of state school finance systems based on the
    inequitable distribution of education revenues between districts
    within states demonstrate that ensuring a fair distribution of funds
    is a complex and difficult undertaking.  States are under constant
    pressure from both poor and wealthy districts, education interest
    groups, and anti-tax groups to modify their state school finance
    systems.  For example, in our 1995 study of three states involved in
    equity lawsuits, we found that the state remedies for improving the
    equity of their school finance systems had to respond to citizens'
    concerns about increased taxes and to concerns of wealthy districts
    that want to maintain spending levels.\21

    --------------------
    \18 For information on the effects of poverty on children, see
    "Children and Poverty," The Future of Children, Center for the Future
    of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Vol.  7, No.  2
    (1997); Henry M.  Levin, "Financing the Education of At-Risk
    Students," Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol.  11, No.  1
    (1989), pp.  47-60; and Lisbeth B.  Schorr with Daniel Schorr, Within
    Our Reach:  Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage (New York:  Doubleday,
    1988).

    \19 Steven D.  Gold, David M.  Smith, and Stephen B.  Lawton, Public
    School Finance Programs of the United States and Canada, 1993-94,
    American Education Finance Association and Center for the Study of
    the States, the Nelson A.  Rockefeller Institute of Government, State
    University of New York (Albany:  1995).

    \20 States may not require the funds generated by formula weights to
    actually be spent in the program areas for which they are generated.

    \21 For more discussion on this matter, see School Finance:  Three
    States' Experiences With Equity in School Funding (GAO/HEHS-96-39,
    Dec.  19, 1995) and Deborah A.  Verstegen and Terry Whitney, "From
    Courthouses to Schoolhouses:  Emerging Judicial Theories of Adequacy
    and Equity," Educational Policy, Vol.  11, No.  3 (1991), pp.
    330-52.

          FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
          EDUCATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

    In fiscal year 1997, the federal government spent about $37 billion
    on elementary and secondary education.\22 The Department of Education
    provides most of these funds.  The states' education agencies receive
    most of the funds and then allocate them to local districts.\23
    Programs funded this way include those for disadvantaged children,
    children with disabilities, drug-free schools, math and science,
    vocational education, and migratory education.  Department of
    Education funding provided directly to districts included impact aid,
    bilingual education, and Indian education.  Among other federal
    agencies that spend substantial amounts on elementary and secondary
    education are USDA through its child nutrition programs and HHS
    through its Head Start and other programs.

    Most federal funding for elementary and secondary education is
    targeted to disadvantaged and poor children.  For example, the
    Department of Education's title I grants that provide compensatory
    services for disadvantaged students accounted for about $7.2 billion
    of the federal funding for education in fiscal year 1997, and USDA's
    child nutrition programs for low-income students accounted for about
    $8.3 billion.  Title I has anchored the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act since it was first enacted in 1965.  USDA began
    providing child nutrition programs with the enactment of the National
    School Lunch Act of 1946 and later expanded its effort under the
    Child Nutrition Act of 1966.

    Members of the Congress have recently considered more flexible
    approaches for funding federal education programs as a way to
    possibly consolidate duplicative programs and eliminate regulations
    seen as unnecessarily limiting local flexibility.  Education programs
    serving disadvantaged students, including title I, are possible
    candidates for this approach.  The Congressional Research Service
    recently noted that among the unresolved issues concerning such
    approaches are the amount of flexibility that would be allowed states
    or localities in using these federal funds and the extent to which
    recipients would be held accountable for achieving certain
    outcomes.\24

    --------------------
    \22 Federal Support for Education:  Fiscal Years 1980 to 1997, U.S.
    Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
    NCES 97-383 (Washington, D.C.:  Sept.  1997).

    \23 For information on state education agencies' use of federal
    education funds, see Education Finance:  Extent of Federal Funding in
    State Education Agencies (GAO/HEHS-95-3, Oct.  14, 1995).

    \24 Wayne Riddle, Education Block Grant Proposals:  Possible Options
    and Issues, Congressional Research Service (Washington, D.C.:  Jan.
    18, 1995).

       EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL
       TARGETING
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

    Most states targeted more funds to districts with large numbers of
    poor students, although the amount of such funding varied widely.  In
    most states, federal funds were more targeted than state funds, which
    resulted in increasing the overall amount of additional funding for
    each poor student.

          STATE FUNDS TARGET POOR
          STUDENTS IN MOST STATES
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

    Regardless of whether a state's school finance system explicitly
    targeted poor students, the effect was to target more state funds to
    poor students in 43 of the 47 states in our analysis.  State school
    finance systems may have targeted poor students either directly
    through compensatory programs or indirectly through other programs,
    such as bilingual education, which may serve a high proportion of
    poor students.\25

    The amount of extra state funding districts received for each poor
    student varied widely.  On average, for every $1 a state provided in
    education aid for each student in a district, the state provided an
    additional $.62 per poor student.\26 At the high end, New Hampshire
    provided an extra $6.69 per poor student; at the low end, four states
    provided no additional funding per poor student.

    --------------------
    \25 Our measure of poor student targeting included any extra funds
    that districts may have received for poor students as the result of
    state programs or formulas that provide additional funds to help
    offset a district's education costs.  Such programs or formulas would
    include those that address the cost of (1) educating students with
    special needs, such as those with disabilities; (2) delivering a
    particular curriculum, such as vocational education programs; or (3)
    transporting students in sparsely populated areas.  Our measure of
    targeting controls for the additional funds districts received as a
    result of states' targeting funds to low tax base districts, that is,
    districts with limited ability to raise revenues as measured by
    income per pupil (see app.  II).

    \26 This is the median, which means that half the states provided
    more than this amount and half provided less.

          FEDERAL FUNDS WERE MORE
          TARGETED THAN STATE FUNDS IN
          MOST STATES
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

    Federal funding was more targeted to poor students than state funding
    in 45 of the 47 states.\27 On average, for every $1 of federal
    funding districts received for each student, they received an
    additional $4.73 in federal funding per poor student.  The amount of
    additional federal funding districts received for each poor student
    varied widely.  At the high end, districts in Alaska received an
    additional $9.04 in federal funding; at the low end, districts in
    West Virginia received an additional $2.59.

    In general, the greater federal targeting had the effect of raising
    the additional funding for poor students from the state-only average
    of $.62 to a combined state and federal average of $1.10, a
    77-percent increase.  This increase reflects that most states'
    relatively small share of federal funds was highly targeted.  Again,
    states varied widely in the amount of combined targeting that
    occurred, ranging from an additional $7.41 for poor students in
    Missouri to an additional $.27 in West Virginia.

    In three states, the addition of federal funding increased funding
    for poor students but did not enhance the state targeting effort.  In
    one state (New Hampshire), the addition of federal funding yielded
    less combined targeting for a poor student.\28 The other two states
    (Nevada and New York) did not target poor students, and the addition
    of the relatively small amount of targeted federal funding did not
    raise the combined targeting effort above zero.

    Table 1 shows each state's amount of state and federal targeting and
    the amount of targeting when state and federal funding are combined.

                              Table 1

              Comparison of Targeting Efforts, School
                            Year 1991-92

                        Amount of targeting for each poor
                                    student\a
                    ------------------------------------------
                                                Combined state
                           State       Federal     and federal
    State                funding     funding\b       funding\b
    --------------  ------------  ------------  --------------
    Alabama                 $.27         $3.65            $.92
    Alaska                  1.81          9.04            2.42
    Arizona                  .50          4.91            1.10
    Arkansas                 .29          3.85             .76
    California              1.15          4.43            1.59
    Colorado                 .27          5.69             .57
    Connecticut             1.53          6.99            1.89
    Delaware                 .38          3.15             .56
    Florida                  .62          4.18             .75
    Georgia                  .40          4.35             .81
    Idaho                    .66          4.73            1.10
    Illinois                2.01          5.93            3.08
    Indiana                  .78          4.93            1.19
    Iowa                     .91          4.72            1.27
    Kansas                   .18          5.79             .52
    Kentucky                 .59          2.91             .87
    Louisiana                .14          2.98             .70
    Maine                    .86          6.81            1.43
    Maryland                 .04          6.19             .38
    Massachusetts           2.98          6.43            3.60
    Michigan                2.71          5.49            3.11
    Minnesota                .96          6.57            1.25
    Mississippi              .22          2.68            1.03
    Missouri                5.97          5.18            7.41
    Montana                  .00          4.52             .54
    Nebraska                 .39          3.49             .70
    Nevada                   .00          2.85             .00
    New Hampshire           6.69          4.69            5.50
    New Jersey              3.45          6.50            4.03
    New Mexico               .00          3.30             .28
    New York                 .00          4.44             .00
    North Carolina           .53          4.97            1.05
    North Dakota             .78          8.39            2.53
    Ohio                    1.48          5.66            2.19
    Oklahoma                 .76          3.96            1.09
    Oregon                  1.57          4.29            2.32
    Pennsylvania            1.31          6.73            1.89
    Rhode Island             .23          3.92             .42
    South Carolina           .21          4.46             .66
    South Dakota            1.30          4.89            2.51
    Tennessee                .31          4.24            1.16
    Texas                    .39          3.71             .58
    Utah                     .02          6.52             .59
    Virginia                 .93          5.27            1.29
    Washington               .70          6.28            1.11
    West Virginia            .09          2.59             .27
    Wisconsin               1.20          5.14            1.55
    Median                  $.62         $4.73           $1.10
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a This is the amount of extra funding provided per poor student for
    every dollar of funding provided for each student.

    \b In our analysis, federal impact aid is considered part of local
    funding, so this amount does not include the effect of federal impact
    aid funding.

    --------------------
    \27 In two states (Missouri and New Hampshire), federal funds were
    targeted to poor students but to a lesser extent than state funds.
    These two states led all states in state targeting.

    \28 Combined state and federal targeting may be less than state
    targeting alone when federal funding is not as targeted as state
    funding.

       EFFECT OF STATE AND FEDERAL
       TARGETING
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

    The addition of state and federal funds had the effect of reducing or
    eliminating the local funding gap between high- and low-poverty
    districts in most states.  In 37 states, high-poverty districts had
    less local funding per weighted pupil\29 than low-poverty districts.
    State funding eliminated this funding gap in 7 states\30 and reduced
    it in the remaining 30 states.  The addition of the more targeted
    federal funds eliminated the funding gap in another 9 states\31 and
    further reduced it in the 21 states that still had funding gaps.  A
    substantial number of poor students lived in these 21 states,
    however.  Although targeting poor students helped reduce the total
    funding gap, the percentage of total education funding provided by
    state and federal governments was more important in reducing the gap.
    States with a greater state and federal share of education funding
    had smaller total funding gaps.

    --------------------
    \29 Weighting of pupils reflects our adjusting the total number of
    students to account for students who cost more to educate.  Our
    weighted pupil count was adjusted for poor students and students with
    disabilities.  On the basis of our poor student targeting results, we
    assigned a weight of 1.6 to poor students.  We assigned a weight of
    2.3 to students with disabilities, the same as that used by the
    Department of Education in its study, Disparities in Public School
    Spending, 1989-90.  See apps.  I and V.

    \30 These seven states were Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri,
    Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Washington.  In Missouri, the addition of
    state funding led to total funding per pupil in the high-poverty
    districts slightly exceeding that in the low-poverty districts.

    \31 These nine states were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas,
    Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

          MOST STATES HAD LOCAL
          FUNDING GAPS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

    High-poverty districts had less local funding per weighted pupil than
    low-poverty districts in 37 states.\32 Separating all school
    districts into five groups on the basis of increasing poverty rates
    reveals the size of the gaps (see fig.  3).\33 The average local
    funding per weighted pupil in the lowest poverty districts was $3,739
    compared with $1,751 in the highest poverty districts.  The lowest
    poverty districts nationwide had about 114 percent more local funding
    than the highest poverty districts.  This gap occurred even though
    the highest poverty districts in 30 states made a greater tax effort
    than the lowest poverty districts.

       Figure 3:  National
       Distribution of Local Funding
       (in Dollars) by Poverty Group,
       School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    --------------------
    \32 Among the remaining 10 states, local funding levels in 8 states
    were not statistically different among high- and low-poverty
    districts.  In the other two states, local funding levels in
    high-poverty districts exceeded the levels in low-poverty districts.

    \33 For this analysis, we grouped each state's student population
    into five groups.  These groups were determined by ranking a state's
    districts according to increasing proportions of poor students and
    then dividing these districts into five groups, each with about the
    same number of students.  We defined lowest poverty districts as
    those districts in the first group and highest poverty districts as
    those in the fifth group.  Normally, each group consisted of about 20
    percent of the students.  In some states, however, the five groups
    may have differed greatly in the number of students because districts
    cannot be statistically divided into smaller units.  In a few states,
    one district (for example, New York City) accounted for more than 20
    percent of the student population and represented the entire group.
    Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the distribution
    of the student population, with the highest poverty group being group
    4.

          STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING
          REDUCED OR ELIMINATED
          FUNDING GAPS IN MOST STATES
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

    Combined state and federal funding had the effect of eliminating the
    funding gap in 16 of the 37 states where the local funding per
    weighted pupil was less in high- than low-poverty districts.
    Combined state and federal funding reduced the funding gap in the
    remaining 21 states.

    The arrows in figure 4 show the effects of combined state and federal
    funding on closing the local funding gap between high- and
    low-poverty districts.  The light arrow indicates the effect of state
    funding on closing the funding gap; the dark arrow indicates the
    effect of federal funding.  The zero line (0) of the figure indicates
    no funding gap between high- and low-poverty districts.  States whose
    funding gaps are represented by negative values are those where
    higher poverty districts had less funding per weighted pupil; states
    whose funding gaps are represented by positive values are those where
    higher poverty districts had more funding per weighted pupil.  The
    further the value is from the zero line, the greater the funding gap.

    The legend in figure 4 describes three points that mark the progress
    of state and federal funds in closing the funding gap.  The tail end
    of the state arrow represents the size of the local funding gap.  The
    second and third points measure the size of the gap that remains
    after state funds and then federal funds are added.  For example, New
    York's local funding gap of about -.65 indicates that local funding
    levels were less in high-poverty than in low-poverty districts.
    Moving to the zero line, the addition of state funds reduced the gap
    to -.40.  The addition of federal funds reduced the gap further to
    about -.35.  (See app.  V for more information on each state's points
    and the statistical significance of each.)

       Figure 4:  Effect of State and
       Federal Funding on Closing
       Local Funding Gaps

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  No funding gap = 0.  Negative points indicate that higher
    poverty districts had less funding per weighted pupil; positive
    points indicate that higher poverty districts had more funding per
    weighted pupil.  Each point is the elasticity of funding per weighted
    pupil to a district's proportion of poor students.  The analyses
    control for statewide differences in geographic cost and student
    need.  (The exact data points appear in table V.1 in app.  V.  Table
    V.2 reports the total funding gaps between the highest and lowest
    poverty districts.)

    \a The total (local, state, and federal) funding point was not
    statistically different from 0.

    \b High-poverty districts made a great enough tax effort to create a
    local funding advantage compared with low-poverty districts,
    resulting in a positive local funding point.

    Figure 4 shows that most states had a funding pattern like New
    York's, with state funding favoring high-poverty districts.  In some
    cases, state funds favored high-poverty districts so much that the
    resulting distribution of funds favored high-poverty districts (it
    passed the zero line).  In some states, the local funding levels in
    high-poverty districts already exceeded those in the low-poverty
    districts.\34 In these states, state funding offset or reduced this
    imbalance.  Finally, in all states, federal funding favored the
    high-poverty districts regardless of the distribution of state and
    local funds.

    --------------------
    \34 In states where the local funding levels in high-poverty
    districts were greater than those in low-poverty districts, the
    high-poverty districts made a greater tax effort than the low-poverty
    districts.

          DESPITE STATE AND FEDERAL
          EFFORTS, FUNDING GAPS
          REMAINED
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

    The national distribution of education resources shown in figure 5
    provides another perspective on the size of the gaps nationwide and
    the effect of state and federal funding in closing them.\35 (See also
    table 2.) When we compared the distribution of local funds of the
    lowest and highest poverty districts (see fig.  3), the lowest
    poverty districts had about 114 percent more local funding per
    weighted pupil than the highest poverty districts nationwide.  States
    helped considerably in closing this funding gap, reducing it to 25
    percent.  The addition of federal funds had the greatest effect on
    the highest poverty districts and reduced the gap to about 15
    percent.

       Figure 5:  National
       Distribution of Education
       Funding (in Dollars) by Poverty
       Group, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

                                             Table 2

                                National Distribution of Education
                              Funding by Poverty Group, School Year
                                             1991-92

                                     Mean funding per weighted pupil
                           ----------------------------------------------------
                             Lowest                                   Highest
                            poverty                                   poverty
                           ----------                                ----------
                                                                                      Percent
                                                                                   difference
                                                                                     (group 1
                                                                                     compared
    Funding      National                                                          with group
    source        average     Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4     Group 5          5)\b
    -----------  --------  ----------  --------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
    Local\a        $2,638      $3,739    $2,967    $2,507    $2,239      $1,751           114
    State           2,556       2,145     2,465     2,652     2,561       2,956
    =========================================================================================
    Subtotal       $5,194      $5,883    $5,432    $5,160    $4,801      $4,708            25
    Federal\a         323         159       222       292       397         545
    =========================================================================================
    Total          $5,517      $6,042    $5,655    $5,452    $5,198      $5,252            15
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Numbers may not add due to rounding.  Funding has been
    adjusted for statewide differences in geographic and student
    need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b This percentage is determined by dividing the difference between
    the lowest and highest poverty groups by the highest poverty group,
    for example, ($3,739 - $1,751)/$1,751 for local funding.

    --------------------
    \35 The five groups all have about the same number of students.

          LARGE STATE AND FEDERAL
          SHARE OF TOTAL FUNDING
          HELPED REDUCE FUNDING GAP
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

    A relatively high combined state and federal share of total funding
    enhanced state and federal targeting efforts to close the funding
    gap.  Figures 6 and 7 illustrate this point.  Both California and
    Virginia had about the same average total funding per weighted pupil
    and the same combined state and federal targeting rate per poor
    student.  However, California's state and federal share was much
    larger (about 71 percent) than Virginia's (about 39 percent).  This
    difference reduced California's funding gap to one smaller than
    Virginia's.  The highest poverty districts in California received
    $237 less in total funding per weighted pupil than the lowest poverty
    districts; in Virginia, the highest poverty districts received $970
    less than the lowest poverty districts.

       Figure 6:  High State and
       Federal Share of Education
       Funding Helps Reduce Funding
       Gap (in Dollars) (California,
       School Year 1991-92)

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

       Figure 7:  Low State and
       Federal Share of Education
       Funding Limits Reduction of
       Funding Gap (in Dollars)
       (Virginia, School Year 1991-92)

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    The size of the combined state and federal share of total funding was
    more important in closing the funding gap than the extent to which
    these funds were targeted to poor students.  This proved to be the
    case in an analysis we conducted to assess the effect of factors that
    influence the size of the funding gap.  Many states eliminated their
    funding gaps even though they had relatively low targeting efforts in
    part because they had higher than average state and federal shares of
    total funding.  Conversely, many states did not close their funding
    gaps even though they had relatively high targeting efforts in part
    because they had relatively low state and federal shares of total
    funding.  Despite state and federal efforts to close the funding gap,
    the most important factor determining the size of the gap was the tax
    effort of high-poverty districts compared with low-poverty
    districts.\36

    --------------------
    \36 The analysis of the 47 states showed that the combined state and
    federal share of total funding, the combined state and federal effort
    to target districts with high concentrations of poor students, the
    poverty elasticity of the tax base, and the poverty elasticity of tax
    effort accounted for 57 percent of the variation in the total funding
    gaps among high- and low-poverty districts.  All variables were
    statistically significant (see app.  V).

          FUNDING GAPS AFFECTED MANY
          POOR STUDENTS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

    Although state and federal funding closed or eliminated the funding
    gaps between high- and low-poverty districts, the gaps that remained
    in the 21 states affected a significant portion of the nation's poor
    students.  Nearly two-thirds of the students in our study were in
    these 21 states, and about 64 percent of the nation's poor students
    attended public schools in these states.

    Information on the state and federal targeting amounts and the effect
    of state and federal funding on the funding gaps in school year
    1991-92 appears in the state profiles in this report (see apps.  VI
    through LIII).  Each profile also provides the amount of local,
    state, and federal funding available for districts in five groups of
    approximately equal numbers of students arranged in increasing
    proportions of poor students as well as other demographic
    information.

       CHANGES IN STATE AND FEDERAL
       TARGETING SINCE SCHOOL YEAR
       1991-92
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

    We contacted state school finance officials in the 47 states to
    determine whether school finance systems had changed in ways that
    would affect the funding patterns of school year 1991-92.  By school
    year 1995-96, only 16 states reported making changes that would
    target more funds to high-
    poverty districts.  Ten states reported no change in targeting, 19
    states reported no targeting of high-poverty districts, and 2 states
    reported targeting less funding to high-poverty districts.  Eight of
    the 47 states reported increasing their state share of education
    funding by 6 percentage points or more.  Appendix LIV summarizes the
    changes states made between school years 1991-92 and 1995-96.

    Although greater targeting has been limited to a minority of states
    since school year 1991-92, federal funding formulas have changed,
    which would result in a continued pattern of greater targeting.
    Federal education officials have reported increased targeting to
    high-poverty districts resulting from changes in title I legislation
    and regulations that went into effect in July 1995.  Title I, the
    largest federal education program, provides funding for disadvantaged
    students.  In addition, other federal programs allocate funds on the
    basis of title I formulas.  The changes in title I would increase the
    relative funding for high-poverty districts from these other
    programs.  Appendix LV discusses changes in federal funding to the
    states since school year 1991-92 in greater detail.

       CONCLUSIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

    Federal funding for education, which primarily serves the needs of
    poor and disadvantaged students, is generally more highly targeted to
    poor students than more multipurpose state funding.  In allocating
    funds to districts, state officials must balance the needs of poor
    students with those of many other high-cost student groups such as
    special education students.  States also generally try to offset
    differences in localities' ability to raise education revenues.  The
    states' wide range in targeting to poor students indicates that
    different states balance the needs of poor students with all other
    needs in different ways.  Furthermore, the many lawsuits alleging
    inequities in state school finance systems illustrate that states are
    under constant pressure to meet the needs of many and often
    conflicting interest groups.  In this context, any proposal to
    consolidate federal education funding into grants that give more
    discretion to states would need to consider that the targeting of
    those federal funds might become more like that of the state funds.
    That is, the federal funds--and the combination of federal and state
    funds--might become less targeted to poor students.

    In assessing states' performance in financing the education needs of
    poor students, policymakers need to look beyond state efforts to
    target poor students and consider the combined state and federal
    share of total education funds.  A low state targeting effort does
    not necessarily mean that a large funding gap exists between a
    state's high- and low-poverty districts, according to our analysis.
    Rather, a relatively high overall share of state and federal funding
    can reduce the gap.

       AGENCY COMMENTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

    The Department of Education reviewed a draft of this report and
    agreed with our finding that federal funding was generally more
    targeted to poor students than either state funding or combined state
    and federal funding.  As suggested by the Department, we clarified
    the wording used to describe federal targeting and incorporated
    technical comments as appropriate.

    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
    from the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to
    appropriate congressional committees and members of the Congress, the
    Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.

    Please contact me on (202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant
    Director, on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any questions.
    GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments appear in appendix LVI.

    Carlotta C.  Joyner
    Director, Education and
     Employment Issues

    SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
    =========================================================== Appendix I

    The objectives of this study were to determine (1) the extent to
    which state and federal funding is targeted to poor students and (2)
    the effect of state and federal funding on the amount of funds
    available to high-poverty compared with low-poverty districts.  To
    help answer these questions, we used school year 1991-92
    district-level data from the Department of Education, the most recent
    available, supplemented by data from the 1990 census and directly
    from states.  We used standard school finance measures and accounted
    for geographic differences in education costs and student need among
    school districts.  We supplemented our analysis by contacting federal
    and state education officials to determine the extent to which
    federal funding patterns and the states' school finance systems had
    changed since 1991-92.  We conducted our work between March and
    December 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government
    auditing standards.

       SCOPE
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

    For this study, we conducted a district-level analysis of all states
    except Hawaii, Vermont, and Wyoming.\37 We wanted our analysis to
    examine state funding for regular school districts with students in
    kindergarten through twelfth grade, so we excluded from the analysis
    administrative districts and districts serving unique student
    populations, such as vocational or special education schools.\38 We
    also excluded from our analysis a number of small districts that had
    extreme outlying values of income per pupil.\39 Finally, we excluded
    districts that lacked data for critical variables such as poverty
    level.  The final database used in our analysis of the 47 states
    contained 14,140 districts with a total of 41,011,102 students,
    representing 99.2 percent of the public school students in the 47
    states.

    --------------------
    \37 Hawaii's state school system is considered one district, so no
    comparisons can be made about state allocations to different
    districts.  Similarly, the District of Columbia and five U.S.
    territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico,
    and Virgin Islands) have one-district systems and were not included
    in our analysis.  We did not analyze targeting in Vermont because
    approximately 55 percent of the federal funding was channeled through
    administrative districts excluded from our analysis.  We excluded
    Wyoming from our analysis because we could not adequately model its
    school finance system.

    \38 That is, we excluded districts in the Common Core of Data with
    agency type codes 3 to 7 and school district codes 4 to 7.

    \39 To identify outlier, we used the method developed by David A.
    Belsley, Edwin Kuh, and Roy E.  Welsch, Regression Diagnostics:
    Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity (New York:
    John Wiley and Sons, 1980), pp.  27-30.  Specifically, we used the
    DFBETA statistic as the basis for deleting outlying observations.  A
    total of 49 districts were excluded as outliers because of their
    extreme values of income per pupil.  No districts were excluded
    because of extreme values of poverty rates.

       DATA SOURCES
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

    We based this study mainly on revenue and demographic data obtained
    from the Department of Education's Common Core of Data (CCD) for the
    1991-92 school year, the most current data available for a national
    set of districts.  Data for the CCD were submitted by state education
    agencies and edited by the Education Department.  We obtained
    district per capita income and population data directly from the 1990
    census because they were not available in the CCD.

    We used revenue data from all sources in the analysis, including
    funding for capital expenditures and debt service.  Federal revenue
    included funding from all Department of Education sources, although
    we considered federal impact aid to be local revenue in our analysis
    because states typically consider funding from this program as part
    of a district's local education resources.  We also included federal
    revenue from other departments that had revenue reported in the CCD,
    including funding for Head Start from HHS and for USDA's child
    nutrition programs.\40

    For variables in our analysis that had missing or incomplete data, we
    obtained the data directly from state education offices.  For
    example, we obtained district-level data for students with
    disabilities for school year 1991-92 directly from the state
    education offices for nine states because the CCD either did not
    report the number of these students in the states or reported a
    number substantially different from another Education Department
    source.\41 We also obtained district-level data on federal revenue
    from seven states for similar reasons.\42 We made further edits on
    the basis of consultations with Department of Education experts.

    In some cases, we imputed critical data when they were missing and
    not available from other sources.  We imputed income per pupil data
    for 199 districts in California because the per capita income data
    needed to compute this control variable were not reported by these
    districts.\43 We also imputed cost index data for 310 districts,
    including 18 in Alaska and 72 in New York (mainly Suffolk County).\44
    The imputation method we used to impute cost index data was based on
    the recommendation of the school finance expert who developed the
    cost index.

    We conducted structured telephone interviews with state school
    finance officials to determine the extent to which states had changed
    their school finance systems since school year 1991-92.  We did not,
    however, verify the accuracy of the officials' statements.  We also
    interviewed federal officials and reviewed supporting documentation
    about changes in federal funding programs since school year 1991-92.

    --------------------
    \40 Federal revenue included the cash payments from USDA's child
    nutrition programs but excluded the value of program commodities.

    \41 The CCD did not report data on students with disabilities for
    Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  The CCD
    provided data on students with disabilities for Illinois, Indiana,
    Louisiana, and New Jersey that differed by at least 15 percent and by
    at least 3,500 students from what the U.S.  Department of Education's
    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services reported for
    school year 1991-92.

    \42 We obtained total federal revenue for each district for school
    year 1991-92 from state officials in Alaska, Ohio, Rhode Island, and
    Texas.  We obtained data on federal impact aid from the Department of
    Education for Delaware, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Ohio.

    \43 We developed a formula to predict the income per pupil of the
    missing districts by running a regression between income per pupil
    and median housing value for districts in California whose median
    housing value was at least $5,000.

    \44 Cost index values for these districts were imputed using the
    value from a district in the same or a similar county with a similar
    enrollment.

       ADJUSTMENTS FOR DIFFERENCES IN
       GEOGRAPHIC AND STUDENT
       NEED-RELATED COSTS
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

    Education costs vary by school district in a state (and nationwide)
    because of geographic differences in the cost of educational
    resources.  For example, some districts have a lower cost of living,
    which may reduce the cost of their education resources.  As a result,
    we used a district-level teacher cost index developed for the
    National Center for Education Statistics to develop a method to
    adjust for statewide geographic differences in resource costs.\45

    Districts with high proportions of students with special needs, such
    as those with disabilities and the poor, generally have higher
    education costs than average because such students require additional
    educational services.  When adjusting our analysis for statewide
    differences in student need, we made adjustments that weighted
    students with disabilities and poor students according to their need
    for additional services.  We gave students with disabilities a weight
    of 2.3 because the cost of educating these children is generally 2.3
    times the cost of educating children who do not need such services.
    We gave poor students a weight of 1.6 because this was the median
    state weight in our analysis.\46 Using these weights, we developed a
    district-level need index adjusted for statewide differences.\47

    --------------------
    \45 We used an adjusted form of the teacher cost index described in
    Public School Teacher Cost Differences Across the United States,
    Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
    Analysis/Methodology Report No.  95-758 (Washington, D.C.:  Oct.
    1995).  For a more complete discussion of the adjustments we made to
    account for geographic differences, see School Finance:  State
    Efforts to Reduce Funding Gaps Between Poor and Wealthy Districts
    (GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.  5, 1997), app.  II.

    \46 The poor student weight estimate of 1.6 falls about midway
    between those estimated by school finance experts who have used such
    weights in their studies.  Depending on the type of services
    provided, the experts have estimated that the additional cost for
    educating poor students ranges from 20 to 100 percent of the average
    per pupil cost.  Such estimates are equivalent to poor student
    weights ranging from 1.2 to 2.0.

    \47 For a more complete discussion of how we developed this index,
    see GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.  5, 1997, app.  II.

       METHODOLOGY
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

    To measure the extent to which state funding was targeted to
    districts on the basis of the number of poor students, we estimated
    the additional state funding per poor student a district received for
    every dollar of state funding received for each student.  To estimate
    the additional funding per poor student, we developed a statistical
    model of the distribution of state funding to local school districts.
    The model describes the distribution of state funds as if a fixed
    percentage of the funds was allocated to districts on the basis of
    the number of poor students and the remaining percentage was
    allocated on the basis of the total number of students.  The model
    also describes the targeting of state funds to districts with low tax
    bases.  Thus, the model accounts for both student needs-based
    targeting related to the number of poor students and targeting to low
    tax base districts.

    By modeling the distribution of state funds this way, we measured the
    additional state funds that districts received per poor student
    compared with every dollar received for each student, while
    statistically removing any additional funding districts may have
    received due to the size of their local tax base.  In addition, the
    model allowed us to measure state targeting policies that either
    directly targeted funding to districts on the basis of the number of
    poor students or indirectly targeted funding on the basis of other
    student needs such as limited-English proficiency programs that may
    serve poor students.

    We used the same general model to determine the extent to which
    federal funding and combined state and federal funding were targeted
    to districts on the basis of the number of poor students.  However,
    when determining the targeting of just federal funding, we did not
    control for differences in local tax bases because none of the
    federal funds included in our analysis were allocated on the basis of
    local tax bases.

    In appendix II, we describe the statistical model used to estimate
    state and federal targeting based on the number of poor students.  In
    appendix III, we use the model to estimate the additional funding
    districts received that was targeted directly or indirectly to poor
    students but controlling for the additional funding districts may
    have received as a result of tax base targeting.  Appendix IV
    analyzes how each state's estimate of poor student targeting would
    change if we controlled for funding that indirectly targeted poor
    students as in states that target students with disabilities.
    Throughout these analyses we adjusted state and federal funding for
    statewide differences in geographic costs and used income per student
    to measure local tax bases,\48 also adjusted for geographic costs.
    In estimating these targeting amounts, we weighted each observation
    by the district's size to allow districts with larger enrollments to
    have more effect on the results.

    To measure the effect of state and federal funding on closing the
    funding gap between high- and low-poverty districts, we estimated the
    elasticity of each state's districts' per pupil funding with respect
    to districts' poverty rate, that is, the proportion of a district's
    total enrollment that is poor.\49 We estimated separate elasticities
    for local funding only; local and state funding combined; and local,
    state, and federal funding combined.  Observing the change in the
    elasticity as state funding and then federal funding were added to
    local funds quantitatively measures the effect of state and federal
    funding on funding gaps between high- and low-poverty districts.  We
    adjusted these analyses for differences in statewide geographic costs
    and student need.  In estimating these elasticities, we weighted each
    observation by the district's size to allow districts with larger
    enrollments to have more effect on the results.  Appendix V details
    this process.

    To determine the factors most closely associated with the nationwide
    differences in states' funding gaps between high- and low-poverty
    districts, we used multiple regression techniques.  We estimated
    several models that used each state's elasticity of districts' pupil
    funding to districts' poverty rate as the dependent variable.  We
    included the following state-level variables as possible explanatory
    variables (see app.  V):

      -- the combined additional state and federal funding targeted to
         districts on the basis of the district's number of poor
         students,

      -- the extent to which state funding is targeted to low tax base
         districts,

      -- combined state and federal funding as a percentage of total
         funding,

      -- the tax effort of low-poverty compared with high-poverty
         districts in a state, and

      -- the tax base of low-poverty compared with high-poverty districts
         in a state (as measured by income per pupil).

    Whenever we included more than one independent variable in a
    regression routine, all the variables were entered into the analysis
    at the same time.

    Appendixes VII through LIII provide profiles of each state's school
    finances in school year 1991-92.  The profiles provide information on
    state and federal funding, the targeting of additional state and
    federal funding for poor students, differences in the tax effort of
    high- and low-poverty districts, and the effect of funding on closing
    the funding gap.  Appendix VI is a detailed guide to the state
    profiles.

    Because we relied on funding data from the 1991-92 school year, we
    telephoned states' school finance officials to determine how state
    school finance systems had changed from school years 1991-92 through
    1995-96.  We specifically asked about changes that would affect the
    amount of funding provided to districts with high proportions of poor
    students.  We also telephoned federal officials responsible for the
    major education programs and reviewed program documents to determine
    how changes in regulations or legislation may have changed federal
    funding to poor students.  Appendixes LIV and LV present the results
    of these efforts.

    --------------------
    \48 A better income measure of a district's ability to raise revenue
    for education would include commercial and other nonresidential
    income in addition to personal income.  However, no national database
    has such district-level data for all states.  Therefore, we used
    total income from the 1990 census to determine per pupil income.  For
    a more complete discussion of this issue, see GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.
    5, 1997, pp.  44-5.

    \49 This elasticity measures the average percent change in per pupil
    funding for a 1-percent increase in a district's proportion of poor
    students.

    MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE TARGETING
    OF FUNDS TO POOR STUDENTS
    ========================================================== Appendix II

    State school finance systems typically provide funds to school
    districts to account for differences in student needs and ability to
    raise education revenues.  Because poor students are generally
    recognized as having special education needs that increase the cost
    of their education, many states try to offset these costs by
    targeting additional funds to districts with high numbers of poor
    students.  Meanwhile, states try to compensate for the limited
    ability of districts with low tax bases to raise education revenues
    by targeting additional state funds to such districts.\50 Poor
    students reside in poor and wealthy districts alike.\51 Therefore,
    when estimating a state's effort to target poor students, accounting
    for state policies that target additional funds to low tax base
    districts is also important.

    This appendix describes the statistical model we used to estimate
    state efforts to target additional funding to poor students, while
    controlling for targeting to low tax base districts.  In the first
    section, we describe how we modeled a district's total student need
    on the basis of the number of all students and poor students.  In the
    second section, we incorporate the total student need of districts
    into a more general model of state funding that also compensates for
    differences in districts' tax bases.  This general model assumes that
    states target additional funds to low tax base districts to equalize
    the funding among poor and wealthy school districts.

    --------------------
    \50 For an analysis of states' policies to reduce funding gaps
    between wealthier and poorer school districts, see School Finance:
    State Efforts to Reduce Funding Gaps Between Poor and Wealthy
    Districts (GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.  5, 1997).

    \51 The weighted correlation between district poverty rate and
    district income per pupil (our measure of a district's tax base) was
    -.357, signifying that as districts' poverty rates increased,
    districts' income per pupil decreased.

       MODELING DISTRICTS' TOTAL
       STUDENT NEED RELATIVE TO POOR
       STUDENTS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

    States typically distribute state funds to school districts on the
    basis of school district enrollment.  To allow for policies that
    provide additional funding to districts on the basis of the number of
    poor students, we introduce an implicit cost weight () that
    reflects the additional state funding provided to each poor student
    in the district.  A district's total student need (total enrollment
    with additional weight given to the number of poor students) is
    represented by the following equation:

       Equation II.1

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    where

    Ni = a district's student enrollment count

    Pi = a district's count of poor students

     = the state's implicit cost weight associated with a poor
    student.

    The implicit cost weight () can be interpreted as follows:
    If the state expense for educating an average student were normalized
    to $1, then  represents the additional state expense for
    educating a poor student.  For example, if a poor student were 50
    percent more expensive for the state to educate than an average
    student, then  would equal $.50.

    Our research objective was to estimate the implicit cost weight
    associated with poor students.  We refer to this cost weight as an
    implicit weight because it must be inferred from data on the actual
    distribution of state funds to local districts.  In addition, it
    should be noted that poor students represent the model's only student
    need factor other than total enrollment.  By not controlling for
    other student need factors (for example, limited-English proficiency
    or gifted students), our estimate of the implicit cost weight
    reflects any additional state funding systematically related to the
    number of poor students in local school districts.\52

    To estimate the implicit cost weight from data on the distribution of
    state funding to local school districts, we first express student
    needs as a grant formula.  If state funds were distributed simply on
    the basis of enrollment with additional funding for poor students,
    then a district's share of total state funding (Grant Sharei) could
    be expressed as its share of the state's total student need (Need
    Sharei) as in equation II.2:

       Equation II.2

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    To estimate  using linear regression methods, we had to
    express a district's share of the state's total student need (Need
    Sharei) as a linear function of enrollment and the number of poor
    students.  We accomplished this by first expanding equation II.2 to
    equation II.3:

       Equation II.3

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Multiplying the first term in equation II.3 by
    Ni/Ni and the second by Pi/Pi
    does not change the value of the expression and allows us to express
    a district's share of total student need as a weighted sum of the
    district's share of enrollment (Ni/Ni) and its share of poor
    children (Pi/Pi):

       Equation II.4

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note that the terms in parentheses sum to one and can be interpreted
    as formula weights applied to a district's share of total enrollment
    and its share of poor students.  Equation II.4 can now be written
    more simply as follows:

       Equation II.5

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    where

    w0 = the formula weight relative to the district's share of total
    state enrollment, and

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    w1 = the formula weight relative to the district's share of the
    state's total number of poor students, and

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    and

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Dividing both sides of equation II.5 by each district's share of
    total enrollment (Ni/Ni) yields an expression for each
    district's relative per pupil grant that also serves as an index of
    student needs.  The following equation demonstrates that, in our
    simple model of student needs, a district's per pupil grant would be
    linearly related to the proportion of poor students in the districts:

       Equation II.6

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    where

    gi = a district's per pupil grant ( = the state average per pupil
    grant)

    ni = a district's student need index (an index value of 1.0 would
    indicate that the district's proportion of poor students equals the
    state's average proportion of poor students)

    ri = a district's proportion of poor students (Pi/Ni); ( = the state
    average proportion of poor students (Pi/Ni)).

    Because the implicit cost weight () depends on the formula
    weights w0 and w1, we derive the implicit cost weight by solving the
    expressions for w0, and w1 in equation II.6 for the implicit cost
    weight .  This yields the following equation:

       Equation II.7

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    where

    = the state average proportion of poor students
    (Pi/Ni).

    --------------------
    \52 The next section of this app.  shows how we account for targeting
    based on differences in districts' tax bases.

       INCORPORATING STUDENT NEEDS
       INTO A GENERAL FOUNDATION
       EQUALIZATION MODEL
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

    The implicit cost weight associated with poor students ()
    could be estimated by applying linear regression techniques to the
    model in equation II.6.  However, this would not account for state
    targeting to poor students that may also offset differences in local
    tax bases.  Consequently, the model in equation II.6 could bias the
    estimate of the implicit cost weight because it would not control for
    the effects of tax base targeting that coincide with poor
    student-based targeting.  To obtain an unbiased estimate of the
    implicit cost weight, we modeled the distribution of state funding
    using a foundation equalization model like that used in our earlier
    report.\53

    With foundation equalizing grants, states seek to enable all school
    districts to finance a minimum amount of total funding per pupil (the
    foundation funding level) with a uniform minimum tax effort.  An
    important implication of this standard is that state funding must be
    targeted to school districts with low tax bases per student.  States
    can adjust the foundation level to account for differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    Our modeling approach is to use the state's average total funding per
    pupil as a benchmark against which to estimate the foundation funding
    level that a state's school finance policies can implicitly support.
    A state's average total funding level represents the highest level of
    total funding per pupil that a state can support with the amount of
    both state and local resources it devotes to education (it is
    impossible to guarantee all districts an above average funding
    level).\54

    Under a foundation equalizing system that supports an implicit
    foundation level equal to the average total funding per pupil (),
    districts would receive a total state equalizing grant (Gi) according
    to the following:

       Equation II.8

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    where

    Gi = total state funding in a district

     = a scalar that ensures that the total sum of state funding
    equals the total amount of state funds available for distribution

    Ni = a district's enrollment count

    ci = a district's input cost index that reflects geographic
    differences in, for example, the cost of teachers

    ni = a district's student need index defined in equation II.6

    = a state's average total funding per pupil (the maximum funding
    level that can be attained by equalizing all available state and
    local funding)

     = the locally financed share of total funding

     = equalization factor (=1 signifies maximum
    equalization and =0 implies none)

    vi = a district's tax base per pupil.

    The state average total funding per pupil serves as a benchmark
    funding level.  Given this benchmark, the quantity represented by
    (Nicini) is the dollar amount of total funding a school district
    needs to finance this benchmark level.

    The implicit foundation level, that is, the minimum total funding per
    pupil (expressed in real dollars), is given by .  Note that
    this level is a fraction () of the state average total
    funding level.  In our earlier report, we showed that the scalar
     depends on the state financing share (1-) and the
    equalization factor  through the following relationship:\55

       Equation II.9

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Notice that the scalar equals 1 if the equalization factor
    also equals 1.  Thus, the implicit foundation level equals the state
    average funding level when =1 and falls below the state
    average when  is less than 1.\56

    The equalization model can be expressed as a linear regression model
    by substituting the expression for ni in equation II.6 and the
    expression for  in equation II.9 into equation II.8.
    Dividing both sides of the resulting equation by an expression for
    the average state grant per pupil ( = (1-)) and rearranging
    some terms yields the following regression model:

       Equation II.10

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    where

    gi = a district's state grant per pupil ( = average state grant per
    pupil)

    ri = a district's proportion of poor students ( = the proportion of
    all students in a state who are poor students)

    vi = a district's tax base per pupil ( = state average)

    ci = a district's input cost index that reflects geographic
    differences in, for example, the cost of teachers

    i = an error term to reflect differences in relative state
    grant amounts unrelated to poor students and tax bases.

    Because the formula weights (w0 and w1) sum to 1, the intercept and
    the two coefficients in equation II.10 also sum to 1.  Therefore, the
    regression model should be estimated by constraining these
    coefficients accordingly.  In addition, because we expect states to
    target additional funds to districts with higher percentages of poor
    students and to those with low tax bases, we also constrain these
    coefficients to be greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal
    to 0, respectively.

    Because we have included income per pupil as a control variable, our
    coefficient on poor students does not reflect state policies that
    target low tax base districts.  However, we purposefully excluded
    control variables that would capture other student needs and costs
    from the model.  This allows the regression coefficient on poor
    students to capture the effects of other student needs and costs to
    the extent they are correlated with poor students.  Consequently, our
    estimate of poor student targeting captures the effects of state
    targeting policies that, for example, provide aid for children with
    limited-English proficiency, children with disabilities, and for
    sparsely populated districts that have higher transportation costs to
    the extent that they are correlated with poor students.\57

    An important implication of the equalization model in equation II.10
    is that the regression coefficient on poor students depends on the
    formula weight w1, the equalization factor , and the local
    funding share .  However, the implicit cost weight
    depends only on the formula weight w1 and the state percentage of
    poor students, as shown in equation II.7.  The implicit cost weight
     is independent of the equalization factor  and the
    local share of education funding in the state .  Therefore,
    to estimate the unbiased implicit cost weight of poor students, that
    is, an estimate that controls for the effects of low tax base
    targeting, the estimate must satisfy the conditions expressed in
    equations II.7 and II.10.  The steps for calculating this unbiased
    implicit cost weight follow:  (1) estimate the regression model in
    equation II.10 with the constraints described above; (2) derive the
    value of  from the tax base coefficient in equation
    II.10; (3) derive the formula weight w1 from the coefficient on poor
    students in equation II.10; and (4) knowing the formula weight w1,
    use equation II.7 to calculate the implicit cost weight .

    --------------------
    \53 GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.  5, 1997.

    \54 As a note of caution, we are not advocating that a state should
    guarantee the state average, but we use the state average as a
    benchmark for measuring the minimum funding level the state
    implicitly provides with the state's education resources.

    \55 GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.  5, 1997, pp.  61-8.

    \56 See GAO/HEHS-97-31, Feb.  5, 1997, app.  IV, for a complete
    discussion of the equalization aspects of this model.

    \57 In app.  IV, we report the results of a sensitivity analysis that
    attempts to control for many of these other student need and cost
    factors.

    ESTIMATING STATE AND FEDERAL
    TARGETING
    ========================================================= Appendix III

    Our goal was to estimate states' and federal targeting of additional
    funding to districts on the basis of the number of poor students.
    This appendix presents the statistical results of estimating the
    grant targeting model described in appendix II.  It presents
    estimates of grant targeting on the basis of the number of poor
    students for (1) state funding alone, (2) federal funding alone, and
    (3) combined state and federal funding.  We estimated the grant
    targeting by including the additional funds that districts received
    for each poor student from programs that target poor students
    directly through compensatory programs, or indirectly, through, for
    example, programs that target limited-English proficiency students.
    Appendix IV shows how the grant targeting estimates would change
    after controlling for some indirect targeting based on other student
    needs.

       TARGETING OF STATE FUNDS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

    As described in appendix II, we began by estimating the model
    summarized in equation II.10, reproduced here as equation III.1, for
    each of the 47 states included in our analysis:

       Equation III.1

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    where

    gi = a district's state grant per pupil ( = average state grant per
    pupil)

    ri = a district's proportion of poor students ( = the proportion of
    all students in the state who are poor)

    vi = a district's tax base per pupil ( = state average)

    ci = a district's input cost index that reflects geographic
    differences in, for example, the cost of teachers

    i = an error term to reflect differences in relative state
    grant amounts unrelated to poor students and tax bases.

    Recall from appendix II that the coefficient on district tax bases
    reflects the state's tax base targeting policy, and w1 represents the
    share of student need accounted for by poor students (see equation
    II.5).  Given the formula weight w1, we then use equation II.7 to
    calculate the implicit cost weight associated with poor students.

    We used state funding per pupil adjusted for statewide differences in
    the cost of teachers as the dependent variable.  The two independent
    variables were a district's proportion of poor students and a
    district's income per pupil adjusted for statewide differences in the
    cost of teachers.  All variables were expressed in index form
    relative to their respective state averages (see app.  I for a more
    detailed discussion of the data used).  We weighted the regressions
    for a district's enrollment size.  The regression coefficients and
    their associated standard errors appear in table III.1 along with the
    R squares of the model.

                                           Table III.1

                               Regression Results Used to Determine
                              Implicit Cost Weight of State Funding

                         Poor student index       Tax base index\a
                       ----------------------  ----------------------
                       Regression              Regression                          R squared\
                       coefficien    Standard  coefficien    Standard           R    standard
    State                     t\b       error         t\c       error   squared\d       error
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Alabama                  .064        .029     -.037\e        .042        .069        .126
    Alaska                   .202        .073     -.203\e        .153        .389        .234
    Arizona                  .117        .030       -.236        .026        .408        .256
    Arkansas                 .081        .019       -.205        .027        .263        .145
    California               .190        .015       -.090        .009        .284        .234
    Colorado               .061\e        .033       -.618        .064        .391        .252
    Connecticut              .198        .027       -.440        .061        .549        .338
    Delaware               .052\e        .120     -.162\e        .111        .265        .123
    Florida                .163\e        .086       -.580        .080        .634        .150
    Georgia                  .103        .025       -.399        .047        .412        .181
    Idaho                    .111        .046       -.179        .043        .218        .150
    Illinois                 .280        .016       -.128        .016        .397        .342
    Indiana                  .103        .012       -.082        .028        .268        .127
    Iowa                     .120        .015       -.080        .027        .167        .128
    Kansas                 .036\e        .043       -.497        .075        .155        .365
    Kentucky                 .165        .018       -.272        .024        .775        .081
    Louisiana              .044\e        .041     -.041\e        .042        .052        .093
    Maine                    .136        .056       -.294        .067        .124        .393
    Maryland               .008\e        .032       -.650        .094        .788        .098
    Massachusetts            .390        .026       -.375        .056        .627        .307
    Michigan                 .457        .027       -.428        .051        .556        .433
    Minnesota                .158        .017       -.510        .031        .490        .231
    Mississippi              .069        .025     -.015\e        .012        .066        .117
    Missouri                 .504        .028        .000        .047        .407        .408
    Montana                 .000\        .029        .000        .025        .000        .326
    Nebraska                 .060        .015       -.257        .028        .137        .247
    Nevada                   .000        .447       -.934        .330        .375        .218
    New Hampshire            .502        .126       -.490        .149        .182        .844
    New Jersey               .296        .016       -.055        .025        .462        .357
    New Mexico               .000        .090        .000        .090        .000        .188
    New York                 .000        .019       -.675        .031        .431        .303
    North Carolina           .090        .020       -.090        .033        .326        .081
    North Dakota             .119        .022     -.052\e        .055        .155        .193
    Ohio                     .238        .012       -.189        .023        .544        .191
    Oklahoma                 .171        .015       -.243        .022        .353        .173
    Oregon                   .204        .049     -.059\e        .051        .075        .337
    Pennsylvania             .212        .011       -.271        .020        .643        .156
    Rhode Island           .048\e        .050       -.673        .182        .423        .208
    South Carolina           .062        .028       -.464        .049        .608        .099
    South Dakota             .228        .042     -.189\e        .112        .283        .288
    Tennessee                .067        .022       -.126        .032        .202        .103
    Texas                    .151        .024       -.714        .035        .465        .366
    Utah                   .004\e        .053       -.313        .078        .318        .133
    Virginia                 .173        .027       -.564        .047        .677        .198
    Washington               .100        .020       -.104        .025        .161        .177
    West Virginia          .028\e        .077       -.229        .093        .231        .120
    Wisconsin                .178        .015       -.229        .026        .413        .222
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a We defined tax base as income per pupil.

    \b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to the percentage
    of a district's poor students controlling for district income.  An
    elasticity of 0 signifies no targeting.  The poor student index
    coefficient in all states was constrained to be greater than or equal
    to .000.

    \c This is the elasticity of the state funding relative to district
    income controlling for districts' percentage of poor students.  An
    elasticity of 0 signifies no targeting.  A negative elasticity
    indicates that state funding increases as district income decreases.
    The tax base index coefficient in all states was constrained to be
    less than or equal to .000.

    \d This is the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable
    explained by the independent variables.

    \e Statistically, the coefficient is not significantly different from
    0.

    Given the estimated tax base coefficients in equation III.1, we then
    solved for the expression 1-.  From this, we
    derived the formula weight w1 from the estimated regression
    coefficient on poor students.  We then calculated the implicit cost
    weight using equation II.7.  The results of these calculations appear
    in table III.2.

                            Table III.2

              State Formula Weights and Implicit Cost
               Weights Associated With Poor Students

                                                 Implicit cost
                                Formula weight      weight for
                                     for state           state
    State                            funding\a       funding\b
    --------------------------  --------------  --------------
    Alabama                               6.1%            $.27
    Alaska                                16.8            1.81
    Arizona                                9.5             .50
    Arkansas                               6.7             .29
    California                            17.5            1.15
    Colorado                               3.8             .27
    Connecticut                           13.8            1.53
    Delaware                               4.4             .38
    Florida                               10.3             .62
    Georgia                                7.3             .40
    Idaho                                  9.4             .66
    Illinois                              24.8            2.01
    Indiana                                9.5             .78
    Iowa                                  11.1             .91
    Kansas                                 2.4             .18
    Kentucky                              12.9             .59
    Louisiana                              4.2             .14
    Maine                                 10.5             .86
    Maryland                               0.5             .04
    Massachusetts                         28.4            2.98
    Michigan                              32.0            2.71
    Minnesota                             10.4             .96
    Mississippi                            6.8             .22
    Missouri                              50.4            5.97
    Montana                                0.0             .00
    Nebraska                               4.8             .39
    Nevada                                 0.0             .00
    New Hampshire                         33.7            6.69
    New Jersey                            28.1            3.45
    New Mexico                             0.0             .00
    New York                               0.0             .00
    North Carolina                         8.3             .53
    North Dakota                          11.3             .78
    Ohio                                  20.0            1.48
    Oklahoma                              13.7             .76
    Oregon                                19.2            1.57
    Pennsylvania                          16.7            1.31
    Rhode Island                           2.9             .23
    South Carolina                         4.2             .21
    South Dakota                          19.2            1.30
    Tennessee                              6.0             .31
    Texas                                  8.8             .39
    Utah                                   0.3             .02
    Virginia                              11.0             .93
    Washington                             9.1             .70
    West Virginia                          2.3             .09
    Wisconsin                             14.5            1.20
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a For each state, this is the proportion of a district's share of
    total student need represented by poor students.

    \b This is the amount of extra state funding per poor student a
    district received for every dollar of state funding received for each
    student.

    The formula weights reported in table III.2 show a wide range of
    variation in the proportion of state funding allocated on the basis
    of the number of poor students.  In Alabama, for example, state
    funding was distributed as if 6 percent of the targeting based on
    student need was allocated on the basis of the number of poor
    students in a district and 94 percent on the basis of a district's
    total enrollment.  This formula weight is equivalent to providing
    Alabama school districts with an additional $.27 per poor student for
    every $1 allocated per student in a district.\58

    Overall, 43 of the 47 states in our analysis targeted additional
    funding either directly or indirectly to districts with poor students
    to some degree.  The amount of extra funding that districts received
    varied substantially by state.  On average, districts received an
    additional $.62 in state funding for each poor student.\59 At the
    high end, for every $1 of state aid provided for each student, New
    Hampshire provided an extra $6.69 per poor student; at the low end,
    four states (Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York) provided no
    additional funding on the basis of the number of poor students.
    Figure III.1 shows each state's additional funding per poor student
    in ranked order.

       Figure III.1:  Targeting of
       State Funds to Poor Students,
       School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    --------------------
    \58 We calculated this figure using the equation II.7 in app.  II.

    \59 The median state targeting was $.62.

       TARGETING OF FEDERAL FUNDS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

    To estimate the targeting of federal funds per poor student, we
    modeled the distribution of federal funding on the basis of total
    enrollment and the number of poor students as shown in equation
    II.10.  However, a tax base variable was not included in the model
    because federal programs do not allocate funding on the basis of this
    factor.  Therefore,  equals 0, resulting in
    equation III.2.  The dependent variable was the district's federal
    funding per pupil adjusted for statewide differences in teacher cost.
    The independent variable was the district's proportion of poor
    students.  Each variable was expressed in index form relative to
    their respective state averages.  The regressions were weighted for a
    district's enrollment size:

       Equation III.2

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    The regression coefficients and their associated standard errors and
    the R squares from our analysis, along with the implicit cost weight
    associated with federal funding for poor students, appear in table
    III.3.

                            Table III.3

                Regression Results and Implicit Cost
                     Weight of Federal Funding

                                                      Implicit
                                                          cost
                  Regression                     R  weight for
                  coefficien    Standard  squared\     federal
    State                t\a       error         b   funding\c
    ------------  ----------  ----------  --------  ----------
    Alabama             .870        .046      .737       $3.65
    Alaska             1.015        .117      .601        9.04
    Arizona            1.030        .048      .711        4.91
    Arkansas            .946        .040      .642        3.85
    California          .816        .026      .512        4.43
    Colorado            .843        .047      .654        5.69
    Connecticut         .725        .020      .893        6.99
    Delaware          .386\d        .412      .059        3.15
    Florida             .778        .071      .649        4.18
    Georgia             .855        .042      .699        4.35
    Idaho               .746        .093      .377        4.73
    Illinois            .976        .016      .792        5.93
    Indiana             .663        .035      .550        4.93
    Iowa                .649        .038      .410        4.72
    Kansas              .797        .042      .543        5.79
    Kentucky            .731        .048      .575        2.91
    Louisiana           .948        .063      .783        2.98
    Maine               .931        .155      .138        6.81
    Maryland            .700        .038      .941        6.19
    Massachusett        .852        .022      .853        6.43
     s
    Michigan            .954        .016      .866        5.49
    Minnesota           .798        .026      .701        6.57
    Mississippi         .883        .046      .717        2.68
    Missouri            .880        .030      .621        5.18
    Montana             .881        .068      .262        4.52
    Nebraska            .450        .027      .289        3.49
    Nevada            .378\d        .275      .112        2.85
    New                 .355        .100      .075        4.69
     Hampshire
    New Jersey          .732        .013      .858        6.50
    New Mexico          .910        .183      .223        3.30
    New York            .820        .011      .894        4.44
    North               .848        .077      .486        4.97
     Carolina
    North Dakota       1.373        .154      .241        8.39
    Ohio                .957        .022      .751        5.66
    Oklahoma            .828        .045      .376        3.96
    Oregon              .651        .075      .209        4.29
    Pennsylvania       1.026        .025      .769        6.73
    Rhode Island        .500        .045      .779        3.92
    South               .928        .052      .781        4.46
     Carolina
    South Dakota        .891        .073      .483        4.89
    Tennessee           .866        .047      .721        4.24
    Texas               .904        .016      .763        3.71
    Utah                .789        .073      .756        6.52
    Virginia            .704        .033      .779        5.27
    Washington          .901        .074      .339        6.28
    West                .662        .082      .551        2.59
     Virginia
    Wisconsin           .722        .014      .857        5.14
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a This is the elasticity of federal funding relative to the
    percentage of a district's poor students.  A positive elasticity
    indicates that federal funding increased as a district's percentage
    of poor students increased.

    \b This is the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable
    explained by the independent variable.

    \c This is the amount of extra federal funding per poor student a
    district received for every dollar of federal funding received for
    each student.  In our analysis, federal impact aid is considered part
    of local funding, so this weight does not include the effect of
    federal impact aid funding.

    \d Statistically, the coefficient is not significantly different from
    0.

    Federal funding was more targeted to poor students than state funds
    in 45 of the 47 states.  On average, districts received an additional
    $4.73 in federal funding per poor student for every $1 of funding
    received by each student.  This amount compares with an additional
    $0.62 in state funding.\60 The amount of additional federal funding
    varied widely.  At the high end, Alaska provided an additional $9.04
    in federal funding; at the low end, West Virginia provided an
    additional $2.59.  In the two states with the highest state targeting
    effort (Missouri and New Hampshire), federal funds were targeted to
    poor students but to a lesser extent than state funds.  Figure III.2
    shows federal targeting in ranked order.

       Figure III.2:  Targeting of
       Federal Funding to Poor
       Students, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    --------------------
    \60 The median federal targeting was $4.73.

       TARGETING OF COMBINED STATE AND
       FEDERAL FUNDS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

    To estimate the targeting of combined state and federal funds, we
    estimated the model in equation III.1 using combined state and
    federal funding per pupil adjusted for statewide differences in the
    cost of teachers' salaries as the dependent variable.  The two
    independent variables were a district's proportion of poor students
    and a district's income per pupil adjusted for statewide differences
    in the cost of teachers.  Because federal funding is not targeted on
    the basis of income per pupil, we constrained the coefficient of the
    income per pupil variable to be the same as that in the regression
    for state funding alone.  As before, each variable was expressed in
    index form relative to its respective state averages.  All
    regressions were weighted on the basis of a district's enrollment.

    The regression coefficients and their associated standard errors from
    our analysis appear in table III.4 along with the R squares of the
    model.  The formula weight and implicit cost weight associated with
    combined state and federal funding for poor students appear in table
    III.5.

                                           Table III.4

                               Regression Results Used to Determine
                              Implicit Cost Weight of Combined State
                                       and Federal Funding

                             Poor student index           Tax base index\a
                         --------------------------  --------------------------
                           Regression                  Regression
                         coefficient\      Standard  coefficient\      Standard
    State                           b         error             c         error   R squared\d
    -------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
    Alabama                      .186          .028       -.037\e          .041          .339
    Alaska                       .257          .074       -.203\e          .153          .473
    Arizona                      .232          .028         -.236          .024          .533
    Arkansas                     .190          .018         -.205          .026          .434
    California                   .247          .015         -.090          .009          .365
    Colorado                     .127          .031         -.618          .059          .421
    Connecticut                  .237          .025         -.440          .057          .626
    Delaware                   .074\e          .100       -.162\e          .093          .405
    Florida                      .193          .080         -.580          .074          .651
    Georgia                      .193          .024         -.399          .045          .515
    Idaho                        .174          .047         -.179          .044          .266
    Illinois                     .379          .014         -.128          .013          .591
    Indiana                      .150          .012         -.082          .027          .416
    Iowa                         .161          .015         -.080          .028          .246
    Kansas                       .101          .040         -.497          .069          .193
    Kentucky                     .227          .021         -.272          .027          .764
    Louisiana                    .190          .038       -.041\e          .038          .353
    Maine                        .212          .055         -.294          .066          .155
    Maryland                     .068          .030         -.650          .088          .844
    Massachusetts                .445          .023         -.375          .050          .721
    Michigan                     .501          .024         -.428          .046          .632
    Minnesota                    .199          .017         -.510          .030          .518
    Mississippi                  .257          .025       -.015\e          .012          .440
    Missouri                     .558          .025          .000          .043          .509
    Montana                      .095          .027          .000          .023          .028
    Nebraska                     .104          .014         -.257          .026          .173
    Nevada                       .000          .419         -.934          .310          .376
    New Hampshire                .439          .096         -.490          .114          .220
    New Jersey                   .330          .015         -.055          .024          .541
    New Mexico                 .072\e          .091          .000          .091          .022
    New York                     .000          .017         -.675          .027          .474
    North Carolina               .166          .022         -.090          .037          .495
    North Dakota                 .308          .033       -.052\e          .084          .320
    Ohio                         .321          .011         -.189          .021          .689
    Oklahoma                     .230          .016         -.243          .023          .420
    Oregon                       .276          .044       -.059\e          .045          .151
    Pennsylvania                 .284          .010         -.271          .019          .746
    Rhode Island               .086\e          .045         -.673          .164          .505
    South Carolina               .176          .028         -.464          .049          .695
    South Dakota                 .373          .045       -.189\e          .121          .436
    Tennessee                    .215          .022         -.126          .033          .515
    Texas                        .212          .022         -.714          .032          .530
    Utah                       .088\e          .049         -.313          .073          .279
    Virginia                     .231          .026         -.564          .045          .706
    Washington                   .151          .019         -.104          .024          .251
    West Virginia              .079\e          .075         -.229          .090          .307
    Wisconsin                    .220          .014         -.229          .024          .504
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a We defined tax base as income per pupil.

    \b This is the elasticity of state and federal funding relative to
    the percentage of a district's poor students controlling for district
    income.  An elasticity of 0 signifies no targeting.  The poor student
    index coefficient in all states was constrained to be greater than or
    equal to .000.

    \c This is the elasticity of the state and federal funding relative
    to district income controlling for a district's percentage of poor
    students.  An elasticity of 0 signifies no targeting.  A negative
    elasticity indicates that state funding increases as district income
    decreases.  The tax base index coefficient in all states was
    constrained to be less than or equal to .000.

    \d This is the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable
    explained by the independent variables.

    \e Statistically, the coefficient is not significantly different from
    0.

                            Table III.5

                 Combined State and Federal Funding
                 Formula Weights and Implicit Cost
               Weights Associated With Poor Students

                                Formula weight   Implicit cost
                                  for combined      weight for
                                     state and  combined state
                                       federal     and federal
    State                            funding\a       funding\b
    --------------------------  --------------  --------------
    Alabama                              17.9%            $.92
    Alaska                                21.3            2.42
    Arizona                               18.8            1.10
    Arkansas                              15.7             .76
    California                            22.6            1.59
    Colorado                               7.8             .57
    Connecticut                           16.4            1.89
    Delaware                               6.4             .56
    Florida                               12.2             .75
    Georgia                               13.8             .81
    Idaho                                 14.8            1.10
    Illinois                              33.6            3.08
    Indiana                               13.9            1.19
    Iowa                                  14.9            1.27
    Kansas                                 6.7             .52
    Kentucky                              17.8             .87
    Louisiana                             18.3             .70
    Maine                                 16.4            1.43
    Maryland                               4.1             .38
    Massachusetts                         32.4            3.60
    Michigan                              35.1            3.11
    Minnesota                             13.2            1.25
    Mississippi                           25.3            1.03
    Missouri                              55.8            7.41
    Montana                                9.5             .54
    Nebraska                               8.3             .70
    Nevada                                 0.0             .00
    New Hampshire                         29.5            5.50
    New Jersey                            31.3            4.03
    New Mexico                             7.2             .28
    New York                               0.0             .00
    North Carolina                        15.3            1.05
    North Dakota                          29.3            2.53
    Ohio                                  27.0            2.19
    Oklahoma                              18.5            1.09
    Oregon                                26.1            2.32
    Pennsylvania                          22.3            1.89
    Rhode Island                           5.1             .42
    South Carolina                        12.0             .66
    South Dakota                          31.4            2.51
    Tennessee                             19.1            1.16
    Texas                                 12.4             .58
    Utah                                   6.7             .59
    Virginia                              14.8            1.29
    Washington                            13.6            1.11
    West Virginia                          6.4             .27
    Wisconsin                             17.9            1.55
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a For each state, this is the proportion of a district's share of
    total student need represented by poor students.

    \b This is the amount of extra combined state and federal funding per
    poor student a district received for every dollar of combined state
    and federal funding received for each student.  In our analysis,
    federal impact aid is considered part of local funding, so this
    weight excludes the effect of federal impact aid funding.

    Greater federal targeting had the effect of raising the average state
    targeting from $.62 to an average combined state and federal
    targeting of $1.10, a 77-percent increase.\61

    This increase reflects the fact that the relatively small share of
    federal funds was highly targeted in most states.  Again, states'
    amounts of combined targeting varied widely, ranging from $7.41 in
    Missouri to $.27 in West Virginia.  The addition of federal funding
    increased state targeting most in North Dakota ($1.75) and least in
    Florida ($.13).

    In three states, the addition of federal funding did not enhance the
    state's targeting effort.  In New Hampshire, the addition of federal
    funding yielded less combined targeting for a poor student.\62 The
    other two states (Nevada and New York) did not target poor students,
    and the addition of the relatively small amount of targeted federal
    funding did not raise the combined targeting effort above zero.

    Figure III.3 shows these results in ranked order.  A comparison of
    the implicit cost weights of state funding alone and combined state
    and federal funding appears in table III.6.

       Figure III.3:  Targeting of
       Combined State and Federal
       Funding to Poor Students,
       School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

                            Table III.6

                Comparison of Implicit Cost Weights

                                        Implicit
                                     cost weight
                          Implicit  for combined
                       cost weight     state and
                         for state       federal
    State                funding\a     funding\b    Difference
    ----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
    Alabama                   $.27          $.92          $.65
    Alaska                    1.81          2.42           .61
    Arizona                    .50          1.10           .60
    Arkansas                   .29           .76           .47
    California                1.15          1.59           .44
    Colorado                   .27           .57           .30
    Connecticut               1.53          1.89           .36
    Delaware                   .38           .56           .18
    Florida                    .62           .75           .13
    Georgia                    .40           .81           .41
    Idaho                      .66          1.10           .44
    Illinois                  2.01          3.08          1.07
    Indiana                    .78          1.19           .41
    Iowa                       .91          1.27           .36
    Kansas                     .18           .52           .34
    Kentucky                   .59           .87           .28
    Louisiana                  .14           .70           .56
    Maine                      .86          1.43           .57
    Maryland                   .04           .38           .34
    Massachusetts             2.98          3.60           .62
    Michigan                  2.71          3.11           .40
    Minnesota                  .96          1.25           .29
    Mississippi                .22          1.03           .81
    Missouri                  5.97          7.41          1.44
    Montana                    .00           .54           .54
    Nebraska                   .39           .70           .31
    Nevada                     .00           .00           .00
    New Hampshire             6.69          5.50         -1.19
    New Jersey                3.45          4.03           .58
    New Mexico                 .00           .28           .28
    New York                   .00           .00           .00
    North Carolina             .53          1.05           .52
    North Dakota               .78          2.53          1.75
    Ohio                      1.48          2.19           .71
    Oklahoma                   .76          1.09           .33
    Oregon                    1.57          2.32           .75
    Pennsylvania              1.31          1.89           .58
    Rhode Island               .23           .42           .19
    South Carolina             .21           .66           .45
    South Dakota              1.30          2.51          1.21
    Tennessee                  .31          1.16           .85
    Texas                      .39           .58           .19
    Utah                       .02           .59           .57
    Virginia                   .93          1.29           .36
    Washington                 .70          1.11           .41
    West Virginia              .09           .27           .18
    Wisconsin                 1.20          1.55           .35
    Median                    $.62         $1.10          $.48
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a This is the amount of extra state funding per poor student a
    district received compared with each dollar of state funding received
    for each student.

    \b This is the amount of extra combined state and federal funding per
    poor student a district received compared with each dollar of
    combined state and federal funding received for each student.  In our
    analysis, federal impact aid is considered part of local funding, so
    this weight excludes the effect of federal impact aid funding.

    --------------------
    \61 The median for the combined state and federal targeting was
    $1.10.

    \62 Combined state and federal targeting can be less than state
    targeting alone when federal funding is not as targeted as state
    funding.

    TARGETING WHEN CONSIDERING OTHER
    STUDENT NEEDS
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

    Our primary concern was to measure the extent to which states target
    additional funds to school districts to compensate for the higher
    cost of educating poor students, while controlling for state policies
    that target more funds to low tax base districts.  In measuring state
    targeting to poor students, we wanted to measure the state's
    targeting effort regardless of whether it was an explicit state
    policy or the result of targeting other types of student needs that
    may be correlated with poor students.  However, estimating the extent
    to which states target more funds to districts on the basis of the
    number of poor students could also be done by holding other types of
    student needs constant.  To measure this type of targeting, we
    expanded our modeling of student need by including additional student
    need factors.

    To account for additional student need factors, we modified equation
    II.5 to include each district's share of (1) high school students,
    (2) students with an Individual Education Plan (a measure of pupils
    with special education needs), (3) the square of student enrollment,
    and (4) the land area of the school district.  Adding these factors,
    each district's share of total student need (Need Sharei) would be
    expressed in the following equation:

       Equation IV.1

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Dividing both sides of equation IV.1 by each district's share of
    total enrollment would produce the following expanded student need
    index:

       Equation IV.2

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    where

    ni = a district's student need index

    PIi = a district's percentage of poor students expressed as a
    percentage of the state average

    HSIi = a district's percentage of high school students expressed as a
    percentage of the state average

    IEPIi = a district's percentage of students with an individual
    education plans expressed as a percentage of the state average

    NIi\2 = a district's share of enrollment squared expressed as a
    percentage of its share of total enrollment

    LAIi = a district's land area per student expressed as a percentage
    of the state average.

    Substituting equations IV.2 and II.9 for equation II.8 and
    rearranging terms allows us to express the foundation equalization
    model with additional student need indicators as follows:

       Equation IV.3

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    We have estimated the model summarized in equation IV.3 for the 47
    states included in our analysis using state and combined state and
    federal funding.  Both dependent variables were expressed on a per
    pupil basis adjusted for statewide differences in teacher costs.\63
    The regression coefficients and standard errors for the two variables
    of interest--the poor student variable and the tax base variable--as
    well as the R squared and standard error of the model appear in table
    IV.1 for the state funding model.  Regression results for the
    combined state and federal funding model appear in table IV.2.

    Given the estimated tax base coefficients for each state, we derived
    the value for 1- and used it to derive each state's
    formula weight w1 from the estimated regression coefficient on poor
    students.  We then calculated the implicit cost weight using equation
    II.7.  Table IV.3 shows the results of these calculations.  Table
    IV.4 compares these results with those from the model used in
    appendix III.

                                            Table IV.1

                             Regression Results Used to Determine the
                              Implicit Cost Weight of State Funding
                             When Controlling for Other Student Needs

                         Poor student index        Tax base index
                       ----------------------  ----------------------
                       Regression              Regression                           R squared
                       coefficien    Standard  coefficien    Standard           R    standard
    State                     t\a       error         t\b       error   squared\c       error
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Alabama                .056\d        .030        .000        .043        .246        .113
    Alaska                 .087\d        .086     -.030\d        .168        .568        .197
    Arizona                  .117        .034       -.233        .035        .416        .254
    Arkansas                 .060        .016       -.326        .030        .482        .121
    California\e             .145        .016       -.119        .010        .331        .226
    Colorado                 .102        .031       -.753        .068        .512        .226
    Connecticut              .418        .048       -.479        .054        .709        .272
    Delaware               .020\d        .150     -.074\d        .139        .440        .107
    Florida                .147\d        .093       -.618        .076        .712        .133
    Georgia                  .088        .024       -.210        .063        .527        .163
    Idaho                  .047\d        .045       -.162        .049        .382        .133
    Illinois                 .494        .017       -.184        .015        .693        .244
    Indiana                  .082        .017       -.079        .031        .310        .123
    Iowa                     .041        .016       -.091        .027        .407        .108
    Kansas                   .129        .043       -.247        .093        .348        .321
    Kentucky                 .142        .016       -.194        .027        .886        .058
    Louisiana              .040\d        .047        .000        .064        .354        .077
    Maine                    .111        .052       -.296        .058        .367        .334
    Maryland               .098\d        .064       -.582        .109        .876        .075
    Massachusetts            .503        .033       -.319        .057        .666        .290
    Michigan                 .357        .039       -.475        .052        .573        .425
    Minnesota                .141        .019       -.488        .031        .579        .210
    Mississippi              .060        .024     -.012\d        .010        .393        .094
    Missouri                 .316        .027     -.033\d        .046        .607        .332
    Montana                  .000        .027       -.131        .046        .257        .281
    Nebraska                 .062        .016       -.252        .031        .144        .246
    Nevada                   .000        .784       -.998        .373        .667        .159
    New Hampshire            .654        .118       -.571        .134        .384        .733
    New Jersey               .226        .018       -.143        .026        .603        .307
    New Mexico               .000        .075        .000        .078        .445        .140
    New York                 .284        .025       -.572        .025        .687        .224
    North Carolina           .082        .015        .000        .030        .637        .059
    North Dakota             .044        .015        .000        .042        .634        .127
    Ohio                     .270        .017       -.171        .026        .579        .183
    Oklahoma                 .145        .014       -.132        .027        .545        .145
    Oregon                   .195        .049     -.044\d        .062        .139        .325
    Pennsylvania             .248        .014       -.199        .019        .728        .137
    Rhode Island             .134        .061       -.752        .140        .715        .146
    South Carolina         .029\d        .034       -.478        .066        .634        .096
    South Dakota             .175        .043        .000        .122        .439        .255
    Tennessee                .135        .022        .000        .032        .525        .079
    Texas                    .304        .023       -.522        .035        .595        .319
    Utah                     .000        .072     -.168\d        .112        .406        .124
    Virginia                 .131        .022       -.486        .040        .838        .140
    Washington               .074        .019     -.033\d        .031        .319        .159
    West Virginia          .078\d        .071     -.054\d        .100        .452        .102
    Wisconsin                .197        .030       -.270        .029        .445        .216
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a This is the elasticity of state funding relative to a district's
    percentage of poor students controlling for other student needs and
    district income.  An elasticity of 0 signifies no targeting.  The
    poor student index coefficient in all states was constrained to be
    greater than or equal to .000.

    \b This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
    income when controlling for student needs.  An elasticity of 0
    signifies no targeting.  A negative elasticity indicates that state
    funding increases as district income decreases.  The tax base index
    coefficient was constrained to be less than or equal to .000 in all
    states.

    \c This is the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable
    explained by the independent variables.

    \d Statistically, the coefficient is not significantly different from
    0.

    \e The analysis excluded the land area variable because of missing
    land area data.

                                            Table IV.2

                             Regression Results Used to Determine the
                              Implicit Cost Weight of Combined State
                             and Federal Funding When Controlling for
                                       Other Student Needs

                             Poor student index            Tax base index
                         --------------------------  --------------------------
                           Regression                  Regression
                         coefficient\      Standard  coefficient\      Standard
    State                           a         error             b         error   R squared\c
    -------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
    Alabama                      .168          .027          .000          .039          .527
    Alaska                     .128\d          .084       -.030\d          .164          .646
    Arizona                      .225          .030         -.233          .031          .545
    Arkansas                     .164          .015         -.326          .029          .624
    California\e                 .187          .015         -.119          .010          .421
    Colorado                     .163          .029         -.753          .063          .529
    Connecticut                  .437          .045         -.479          .050          .752
    Delaware                   .080\d          .135       -.074\d          .125          .468
    Florida                      .185          .086         -.618          .070          .724
    Georgia                      .176          .023         -.210          .061          .619
    Idaho                        .101          .045         -.162          .049          .450
    Illinois                     .518          .016         -.184          .014          .754
    Indiana                      .115          .017         -.079          .030          .461
    Iowa                         .070          .016         -.091          .026          .492
    Kansas                       .182          .040         -.247          .086          .376
    Kentucky                     .209          .017         -.194          .030          .891
    Louisiana                    .182          .044          .000          .060          .554
    Maine                        .193          .051         -.296          .058          .390
    Maryland                     .149          .058         -.582          .099          .915
    Massachusetts                .531          .030         -.319          .051          .747
    Michigan                     .388          .035         -.475          .047          .651
    Minnesota                    .178          .018         -.488          .030          .605
    Mississippi                  .229          .023       -.012\d          .010          .681
    Missouri                     .381          .024       -.033\d          .041          .684
    Montana                      .071          .025         -.131          .043          .250
    Nebraska                     .100          .015         -.252          .029          .183
    Nevada                       .000          .727         -.998          .346          .675
    New Hampshire                .533          .096         -.571          .109          .339
    New Jersey                   .257          .017         -.143          .024          .666
    New Mexico                 .038\d          .075          .000          .078          .479
    New York                     .314          .022         -.572          .022          .689
    North Carolina               .155          .017          .000          .034          .721
    North Dakota                 .249          .032          .000          .090          .429
    Ohio                         .318          .016         -.171          .024          .714
    Oklahoma                     .200          .015         -.132          .028          .594
    Oregon                       .264          .044       -.044\d          .055          .230
    Pennsylvania                 .287          .013         -.199          .018          .793
    Rhode Island                 .159          .057         -.752          .129          .744
    South Carolina               .125          .033         -.478          .063          .738
    South Dakota                 .273          .045          .000          .127          .590
    Tennessee                    .268          .022          .000          .032          .712
    Texas                        .356          .021         -.522          .031          .650
    Utah                       .004\d          .066       -.168\d          .102          .408
    Virginia                     .200          .021         -.486          .037          .861
    Washington                   .122          .018       -.033\d          .029          .409
    West Virginia              .127\d          .067       -.054\d          .095          .534
    Wisconsin                    .216          .028         -.270          .028          .532
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a This is the elasticity of combined state and federal funding
    relative to a district's percentage of poor students when controlling
    for other student needs and district income.  An elasticity of 0
    signifies no targeting.  The poor student index coefficient in all
    states was constrained to be greater than or equal to .000.

    \b This is the elasticity of combined state and federal funding
    relative to district income when controlling for student needs.  An
    elasticity of 0 signifies no targeting.  A negative elasticity
    indicates that state and federal funding increases as district income
    decreases.  The tax base index coefficient in all states was
    constrained to be less than or equal to .000.

    \c This is the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable
    explained by the independent variables.

    \d Statistically, the coefficient is not significantly different from
    0.

    \e The analysis excluded the land area variable because of missing
    land area data.

                             Table IV.3

                 Formula Weights and Implicit Cost
               Weights Associated With Poor Students
              When Controlling for Other Student Needs

                                           Combined state and
                      State funding         federal funding
                  ----------------------  --------------------
                                Implicit              Implicit
                     Formula        cost   Formula        cost
    State           weight\a    weight\b  weight\a    weight\c
    ------------  ----------  ----------  --------  ----------
    Alabama             5.6%        $.25     16.8%        $.85
    Alaska               8.5         .83      12.5        1.27
    Arizona              9.5         .50      18.2        1.06
    Arkansas             4.5         .19      12.4         .57
    California          13.0         .81      16.7        1.09
    Colorado             5.8         .42       9.3         .69
    Connecticut         28.2        3.79      29.5        4.03
    Delaware             1.8         .15       7.5         .66
    Florida              9.1         .54      11.4         .69
    Georgia              7.3         .40      14.6         .87
    Idaho                4.0         .26       8.7         .60
    Illinois            41.7        4.36      43.7        4.74
    Indiana              7.6         .61      10.6         .88
    Iowa                 3.8         .28       6.4         .49
    Kansas              10.3         .83      14.6        1.24
    Kentucky            11.8         .54      17.5         .85
    Louisiana            4.0         .13      18.2         .70
    Maine                8.6         .68      14.9        1.27
    Maryland             6.2         .58       9.4         .92
    Massachusett        38.1        4.63      40.2        5.06
     s
    Michigan            24.2        1.84      26.3        2.05
    Minnesota            9.5         .86      12.0        1.12
    Mississippi          5.9         .19      22.7         .89
    Missouri            30.6        2.59      36.8        3.43
    Montana              0.0         .00       6.3         .34
    Nebraska             5.0         .40       8.0         .68
    Nevada               0.0         .00       0.0         .00
    New                 41.6        9.38      33.9        6.75
     Hampshire
    New Jersey          19.8        2.19      22.5        2.56
    New Mexico           0.0         .00       3.8         .15
    New York            18.1        1.19      20.0        1.35
    North                8.2         .52      15.5        1.07
     Carolina
    North Dakota         4.4         .28      24.9        2.02
    Ohio                23.0        1.77      27.2        2.21
    Oklahoma            12.8         .70      17.7        1.03
    Oregon              18.7        1.51      25.3        2.23
    Pennsylvania        20.7        1.71      24.0        2.07
    Rhode Island         7.6         .65       9.1         .78
    South                2.0         .10       8.5         .44
     Carolina
    South Dakota        17.5        1.17      27.3        2.07
    Tennessee           13.5         .77      26.8        1.80
    Texas               20.0        1.02      23.4        1.25
    Utah                 0.0         .00       0.3         .03
    Virginia             8.8         .72      13.4        1.16
    Washington           7.2         .54      11.8         .93
    West                 7.4         .31      12.1         .54
     Virginia
    Wisconsin           15.5        1.30      17.0        1.46
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a For each state, this is the proportion of a district's share of
    total student need represented by poor students.

    \b This is the amount of extra state funding per poor student a
    district received for every dollar of state funding received for each
    student when controlling for other student needs.

    \c This is the amount of extra state and federal funding per poor
    student a district received for every dollar of state and federal
    funding received for each student when controlling for other student
    needs.  In our analysis, federal impact aid is considered part of
    local funding, so this weight does not include the effect of federal
    impact aid funding.

                             Table IV.4

                Comparison of Implicit Cost Weights

                                         Implicit cost weight
                  Implicit cost weight  for combined state and
                   for state funding      federal funding\a
                  --------------------  ----------------------
                  Original    Expanded    Original    Expanded
    State          model\b     model\c     model\d     model\e
    ------------  --------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Alabama           $.27        $.25        $.92        $.85
    Alaska            1.81         .83        2.42        1.27
    Arizona            .50         .50        1.10        1.06
    Arkansas           .29         .19         .76         .57
    California        1.15         .81        1.59        1.09
    Colorado           .27         .42         .57         .69
    Connecticut       1.53        3.79        1.89        4.03
    Delaware           .38         .15         .56         .66
    Florida            .62         .54         .75         .69
    Georgia            .40         .40         .81         .87
    Idaho              .66         .26        1.10         .60
    Illinois          2.01        4.36        3.08        4.74
    Indiana            .78         .61        1.19         .88
    Iowa               .91         .28        1.27         .49
    Kansas             .18         .83         .52        1.24
    Kentucky           .59         .54         .87         .85
    Louisiana          .14         .13         .70         .70
    Maine              .86         .68        1.43        1.27
    Maryland           .04         .58         .38         .92
    Massachusett      2.98        4.63        3.60        5.06
     s
    Michigan          2.71        1.84        3.11        2.05
    Minnesota          .96         .86        1.25        1.12
    Mississippi        .22         .19        1.03         .89
    Missouri          5.97        2.59        7.41        3.43
    Montana            .00         .00         .54         .34
    Nebraska           .39         .40         .70         .68
    Nevada             .00         .00         .00         .00
    New               6.69        9.38        5.50        6.75
     Hampshire
    New Jersey        3.45        2.19        4.03        2.56
    New Mexico         .00         .00         .28         .15
    New York           .00        1.19         .00        1.35
    North              .53         .52        1.05        1.07
     Carolina
    North Dakota       .78         .28        2.53        2.02
    Ohio              1.48        1.77        2.19        2.21
    Oklahoma           .76         .70        1.09        1.03
    Oregon            1.57        1.51        2.32        2.23
    Pennsylvania      1.31        1.71        1.89        2.07
    Rhode Island       .23         .65         .42         .78
    South              .21         .10         .66         .44
     Carolina
    South Dakota      1.30        1.17        2.51        2.07
    Tennessee          .31         .77        1.16        1.80
    Texas              .39        1.02         .58        1.25
    Utah               .02         .00         .59         .03
    Virginia           .93         .72        1.29        1.16
    Washington         .70         .54        1.11         .93
    West               .09         .31         .27         .54
     Virginia
    Wisconsin         1.20        1.30        1.55        1.46
    Median            $.62        $.61       $1.10       $1.06
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a In our analysis, federal impact aid is considered part of local
    funding, so this weight does not include the effect of federal impact
    aid funding.

    \b This is the amount of extra state funding per poor student a
    district received for every dollar of state funding received for each
    student.

    \c This is the amount of extra state funding per poor student a
    district received for every dollar of state funding received for each
    student when controlling for other student needs.

    \d This is the amount of extra state and federal funding per poor
    student a district received for every dollar of state and federal
    funding received for each student.

    \e This is the amount of extra state and federal funding per poor
    student a district received for every dollar of state and federal
    funding received for each student when controlling for other student
    needs.

    As table IV.4 shows, the results of the expanded model differ
    dramatically from those of the model used in appendix III for a
    number of states.  Overall, the implicit weight of state funding in
    the expanded model increased in 16 states and decreased in 26 states.
    States with the largest increases in the implicit weight of state
    funding were Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
    New York; states with the largest decreases were Alaska, Michigan,
    Missouri, and New Jersey.  Kansas, Maryland, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
    Texas, and West Virginia also had noteworthy increases; Delaware,
    Idaho, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Carolina had noteworthy
    decreases.  Five states had the same implicit weight.  The median
    implicit weight declined slightly, from $.62 to $.61.

    A comparison of the combined state and federal weights reveals a
    similar pattern.  The same five states had the largest increases in
    the implicit weight of combined state and federal funding:
    Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York;
    the same four states had the largest decreases:  Alaska, Michigan,
    Missouri, and New Jersey.  Kansas, Maryland, Texas, and West Virginia
    also had noteworthy increases; Iowa and Utah had noteworthy
    decreases.  Overall, the implicit combined weight in the expanded
    model increased in 17 states and decreased in 28 states.  Two states
    had the same implicit weight.  The median implicit weight decreased
    slightly, from $1.10 to $1.06.

    --------------------
    \63 We excluded the land area variable in the California analysis
    because 200 districts lacked land area data.

    DETERMINING THE EFFECTS OF STATE
    AND FEDERAL FUNDING ON FUNDING
    LEVELS
    =========================================================== Appendix V

    One goal of this study was to determine the variability of local
    funding levels in high- and low-poverty districts and the changes in
    these funding levels as state and federal funds were added.  Because
    high-poverty districts tend to have low tax bases, such districts
    typically have lower local funding levels compared with low-poverty
    districts.  States generally distribute state funds on the basis of a
    district's educational need and ability to raise local revenue for
    education, while federal funds are targeted largely to poor and other
    disadvantaged students.  Given these policy features, we expected
    high-poverty districts to benefit from both state and federal funding
    and that total funding levels in high- and low-poverty districts
    would be more equal with the addition of state and then federal
    funds.

    This appendix presents the method we used to estimate the size of the
    local funding gap and the effect that state funds and then federal
    funds had on closing this gap in each state.  It also presents
    results of the distribution of total funding to districts with the
    highest and lowest poverty levels.  Finally, it discusses factors
    that affect poverty-related funding gaps.

       CALCULATING THE POVERTY
       ELASTICITY OF DISTRICT FUNDING
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

    We measured the size of the funding gap by determining the extent to
    which funding varied in high- and low-poverty districts using the
    poverty elasticity of funding per weighted pupil.  The elasticity
    measures the percentage change in a district's funding level for
    every 1-percent change in a district's poverty rate, where the
    district's change in a variable is measured relative to its state
    average.  We determined the poverty elasticity of local funding per
    weighted pupil and then the changes in poverty elasticity with the
    addition of state funds and then with the addition of federal funds.
    A negative poverty elasticity score indicates that high-poverty
    districts tended to have less funding per weighted pupil than
    low-poverty districts; a positive elasticity score indicates that
    high-poverty districts tended to have more funding per weighted pupil
    than low-poverty districts; and 0 score indicates that no systematic
    differences occurred in funding levels among all districts.

    We used a linear regression model to estimate the elasticity of a
    district's funding relative to a district's proportion of poor
    students.  To assess the incremental effects of state funds and then
    federal funds, we estimated the poverty elasticity relative to a
    district's funding in three ways.  First, we determined the poverty
    elasticity to local funding per weighted pupil.  We then added state
    funds and determined the poverty elasticity of the combined state and
    local funding per weighted pupil.  Finally, we added the federal
    funds to determine the poverty elasticity of total (federal, state,
    and local) funding per weighted pupil.

    The dependent variable was one of the three measures of district
    funding per weighted pupil, and each was adjusted for statewide
    differences in geographic cost and student need (see app.  I).  The
    independent variable was a district's poverty rate.  For each
    regression, the dependent and the independent variables were placed
    in index form, that is, they were expressed as a percentage of their
    respective state averages.  We estimated the three poverty
    elasticities by weighting each observation for membership size to
    better reflect the distribution of state funding to students rather
    than to districts; thus, school districts with larger enrollments had
    a greater effect in determining the estimated coefficients of the
    model.  With these adjustments, a general model for all three
    regressions took the following form:

       Equation V.1

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Because both variables are measured relative to their respective
    state averages, the regression coefficient (1) represents
    the poverty elasticity score.  The error term () in the
    equation reflects the variation in the funding per weighted pupil
    that could not be accounted for by the poverty index variable.

       ANALYSIS RESULTS
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

    In 37 states, high-poverty districts had less local funding per
    weighted pupil than low-poverty districts (the poverty elasticity was
    negative).\64 Florida had the largest local funding gap and South
    Dakota the smallest.  In two states (New Mexico and Utah),
    high-poverty districts had more local funding per weighted pupil (the
    poverty elasticity was positive).\65 In both of these states,
    high-poverty districts made a greater tax effort than low-poverty
    districts.  In the remaining eight states, local funding per weighted
    pupil was not statistically different as poverty rates increased.

    The addition of state funds reduced the number of states with a
    funding gap (negative elasticity) from 37 to 30 and the size of the
    funding gap in the remaining 30 states.  Of the states where funding
    gaps remained, state funding in Florida reduced the gap most, and
    state funding in New Hampshire reduced it the least.  Three states
    had a positive elasticity, that is, the combined local and state
    funding per weighted pupil increased as a district's poverty rate
    increased.

    The addition of federal funds further reduced the number of states
    with a funding gap (negative elasticity) from 30 to 21 and the size
    of the funding gap in the remaining 21 states.  Of the states where
    funding gaps remained, federal funding in Alabama reduced the gap the
    most, and federal funding in New Hampshire reduced it least.  In six
    states, high-poverty districts had more total (local, state, and
    federal) funding per weighted pupil than low-poverty districts
    (positive elasticity).

    Table V.1 shows the elasticities of local, local and state, and total
    funding to district poverty rates and the adjusted R square for each
    state.\66 Figure 4 (shown earlier in the report) provides the table
    information in graphic form.

                                            Table V.1

                               Effect of Local, State, and Federal
                             Funding on Poverty-Related Funding Gaps

                             Poverty elasticity of                 Adjusted R square
                       ----------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                                                   Local,                              Local,
                                    Local and  state, and               Local and  state, and
                            Local       state     federal       Local       state     federal
    State                 funding     funding     funding     funding     funding     funding
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Alabama                 -.501       -.172       -.070        .172        .158        .032
    Alaska                +.190\a       +.185       +.221        .008        .107        .154
    Arizona                 -.153       -.046     +.015\a        .036        .016       -.003
    Arkansas                -.292       -.099     -.021\a        .062        .071        .001
    California              -.615       -.092       -.036        .213        .066        .011
    Colorado              -.109\a     -.037\a     -.004\a        .013        .006       -.006
    Connecticut             -.251       -.075       -.050        .346        .186        .098
    Delaware                -.553     -.102\a     -.071\a        .261        .054        .037
    Florida                 -.794       -.133     -.077\a        .250        .098        .029
    Georgia                 -.195     -.042\a     +.019\a        .037        .011       -.002
    Idaho                   -.397     -.092\a     -.037\a        .057        .022       -.004
    Illinois                -.449       -.209       -.145        .291        .209        .123
    Indiana                 -.187       -.070       -.039        .152        .109        .035
    Iowa                    -.226       -.099       -.073        .122        .077        .043
    Kansas                  -.190       -.081     -.045\a        .060        .031        .008
    Kentucky                -.667       -.084     -.012\a        .333        .166       -.002
    Louisiana               -.314       -.162     -.057\a        .058        .118        .005
    Maine                   -.264       -.075     -.028\a        .062        .036        .001
    Maryland                -.343       -.181       -.147        .501        .632        .553
    Massachusetts           -.326       -.108       -.066        .307        .123        .053
    Michigan                -.396       -.117       -.079        .438        .189        .100
    Minnesota             -.057\a       +.037       +.062        .005        .029        .080
    Mississippi             -.296       -.146     -.006\a        .070        .132       -.007
    Missouri                -.189       +.060       +.108        .058        .009        .036
    Montana               +.033\a     -.025\a     +.013\a       -.001       -.001       -.002
    Nebraska              -.036\a     -.022\a     -.005\a        .002        .001       -.001
    Nevada                -.465\a     -.315\a     -.279\a       -.030       -.016       -.024
    New Hampshire           -.188       -.127       -.114        .142        .087        .075
    New Jersey              -.297       -.065       -.040        .383        .115        .047
    New Mexico              +.414     -.035\a     +.040\a        .078       -.004       -.004
    New York                -.655       -.400       -.344        .438        .593        .542
    North Carolina          -.450       -.119       -.056        .223        .155        .039
    North Dakota          -.043\a     -.005\a       +.083        .001       -.004        .038
    Ohio                    -.302       -.103       -.053        .190        .091        .027
    Oklahoma                -.115     +.024\a       +.070        .013        .003        .038
    Oregon                  -.203       -.095       -.055        .078        .043        .014
    Pennsylvania            -.388       -.141       -.095        .394        .295        .167
    Rhode Island            -.251       -.120       -.096        .418        .402        .308
    South Carolina          -.309       -.123     -.045\a        .138        .187        .025
    South Dakota            -.112     -.037\a     +.019\a        .089        .010       -.002
    Tennessee             -.059\a     -.030\a     +.051\a       -.003       -.003        .009
    Texas                   -.442       -.083       -.025        .234        .064        .006
    Utah                    +.428     +.088\a       +.123        .118        .039        .102
    Virginia                -.287       -.099       -.059        .178        .125        .048
    Washington              -.215     -.030\a     +.010\a        .127        .009       -.002
    West Virginia           -.608       -.138       -.088        .326        .211        .098
    Wisconsin               -.257       -.077       -.050        .279        .168        .080
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  An elasticity of 0 means that funding did not change as the
    proportion of poor students in a district changed among all
    districts.  A negative elasticity means that funding decreased as the
    proportion of poor students in a district increased, that is, higher
    poverty districts received less funding than lower poverty districts.
    A positive elasticity means that funding increased as the proportion
    of poor students in a district increased, that is, higher poverty
    districts received more funding than lower poverty districts.

    \a Statistically, the result is not significantly different from 0.

    Another way to analyze the size of the poverty-related funding gaps
    is to examine the amount of funding available to districts with the
    highest and lowest poverty rates.  To do this, we grouped each
    state's student population into five groups.  These groups were
    determined by ranking a state's districts according to increasing
    proportions of poor students and then dividing these districts into
    five groups, each with about the same number of students.  We defined
    lowest poverty districts as those districts in the first group and
    highest poverty districts as those in the fifth group.  Normally,
    each group consisted of about 20 percent of each state's students.\67

    Nationwide, the lowest poverty districts had about 114 percent more
    local funding per weighted pupil than the highest poverty districts.
    The addition of state funds greatly reduced this funding gap to 25
    percent.  The addition of federal funding reduced the total funding
    gap to about 15 percent.  Table V.2 summarizes the gaps in total
    funding per weighted pupil between each state's highest and lowest
    poverty districts.

                             Table V.2

               Total Funding Gaps Between the Lowest
                   and Highest Poverty Districts

                     Total funding per weighted
                              pupil\a
                  --------------------------------
                                                        Lowest
                                                       poverty
                                                         group
                                                       funding
                                                      compared
                                                      with the
                               For the     For the     highest
                                lowest     highest     poverty
                     State     poverty     poverty       group
    State          average       group       group   funding\b
    ------------  --------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Alabama         $3,696      $3,808      $3,603        1.06
    Alaska           9,054       8,737      11,137        0.78
    Arizona          4,959       5,256       5,022        1.05
    Arkansas         4,164       3,935       4,012        0.98
    California       4,902       5,126       4,889        1.05
    Colorado         5,288       5,691       5,511        1.03
    Connecticut      8,531       8,993       7,664        1.17
    Delaware         6,008       5,927       5,683        1.04
    Florida          5,964       5,946       5,793        1.03
    Georgia          4,688       4,614       4,768        0.97
    Idaho            3,805       3,781       3,719        1.02
    Illinois         5,295       6,686       4,708        1.42
    Indiana          5,248       5,553       5,177        1.07
    Iowa             5,051       5,388       4,843        1.11
    Kansas           5,240       5,300       5,078        1.04
    Kentucky         4,174       3,945       4,069        0.97
    Louisiana        4,397       4,574       4,480        1.02
    Maine            6,017       6,373       6,111        1.04
    Maryland         6,349       7,836       4,813        1.63
    Massachusett     6,601       7,184       6,299        1.14
     s
    Michigan         6,110       7,029       5,598        1.26
    Minnesota        5,872       5,749       6,322        0.91
    Mississippi      3,386       3,331       3,299        1.01
    Missouri         4,272       4,692       5,453        0.86
    Montana          5,260       6,383       5,886        1.08
    Nebraska         5,448       5,561       5,404        1.03
    Nevada           3,810       4,610       5,359        0.86
    New              6,028       6,756       5,128        1.32
     Hampshire
    New Jersey       9,605      10,346       9,162        1.13
    New Mexico       4,353       4,686       4,578        1.02
    New York         8,233      11,045       8,235        1.34
    North            4,780       5,045       4,702        1.07
     Carolina
    North Dakota     4,467       4,622       5,269        0.88
    Ohio             4,984       5,697       4,962        1.15
    Oklahoma         3,929       3,738       4,062        0.92
    Oregon           5,411       5,654       5,062        1.12
    Pennsylvania     6,709       7,704       6,396        1.20
    Rhode Island     6,244       6,690       5,524        1.21
    South            4,509       4,730       4,443        1.06
     Carolina
    South Dakota     4,217       4,503       4,479        1.01
    Tennessee        3,699       3,681       3,939        0.93
    Texas            4,946       5,069       5,020        1.01
    Utah             3,408       3,331       3,752        0.89
    Virginia         5,021       5,782       4,812        1.20
    Washington       5,604       5,716       5,681        1.01
    West             5,332       5,452       5,020        1.09
     Virginia
    Wisconsin        6,124       6,554       5,889        1.11
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a Total funding includes all local, state, and federal funding.  All
    funding figures have been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.  When adjusting for
    student need, we assigned weights of 1.6 to poor students and 2.3 to
    students with disabilities.

    \b We calculated this ratio by dividing the lowest poverty districts'
    funding by the highest poverty districts' funding, for example,
    $3,808/$3,603 in Alabama.

    --------------------
    \64 However, another six states had negative elasticity scores that
    were not statistically significant.

    \65 Alaska and Montana also had positive elasticity scores that were
    not statistically significant.

    \66 The adjusted R square is the proportion of the variation of the
    dependent variable explained by the independent variable(s).

    \67 Nevada was divided into only four groups because of the
    distribution of the student population.  The highest poverty group
    was group 4.

       FACTORS AFFECTING
       POVERTY-RELATED FUNDING GAPS
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

    Several factors affect the size of the gaps in total funding between
    high- and low-poverty districts.  These include

      -- differences in the tax base of high- and low-poverty districts,

      -- differences in the tax effort of high- and low-poverty
         districts,

      -- the state and federal shares of total funding,

      -- the extent to which state and federal funding is targeted to
         districts with high-poverty rates, and

      -- the extent to which state funding is targeted to districts with
         low tax bases.

    To estimate the extent to which these factors accounted for the
    variation in the total funding gap between high and low-poverty
    districts, we constructed a regression model that used these factors
    to explain differences among states' funding gaps.  We used the
    elasticity of local, state, and federal funding reported in table V.1
    as the measure of the total funding gap between high- and low-poverty
    districts.  We used the elasticity of local tax bases relative to
    district poverty rates as the measure of tax base differences and the
    elasticity of local tax effort relative to districts' poverty rates
    as the measure of tax effort differences.  We also used the combined
    state and federal share of total funding, the combined state and
    federal targeting to poor students, and the states' tax base
    targeting in the model.  These factors appear in table V.3.

    We estimated several versions of the model with state and federal
    funding shares and poor student targeting entered separately and
    combined into one variable.  The model described in table V.4, which
    has four variables, all of which were statistically significant,
    accounted for 57 percent of the variation in funding gaps among
    states.  The model includes only four variables because when we
    included all five variables in the analysis, the fifth variable,
    differences in state tax base targeting, was insignificant.

                                            Table V.3

                                Factors Affecting Poverty-Related
                                Funding Gaps, School Year 1991-92

                     Poor student       Share of funding
                   targeting weight        (percent)
                  -------------------  ------------------
                                                           State tax-              Elasticity
                     State  State and                            base  Elasticity    of local
                  funding\    federal            Federal\  targeting\    of local         tax
    State                a  funding\b     State         c           d  tax base\e    effort\f
    ------------  --------  ---------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Alabama           $.27       $.92      61.9      11.1     -.037\g       -.435     -.026\g
    Alaska            1.81       2.42      67.8       5.4     -.203\g       -.381       1.982
    Arizona            .50       1.10      42.5       6.9       -.236       -.427       1.109
    Arkansas           .29        .76      59.5       9.0       -.205       -.330      .085\g
    California        1.15       1.59      63.9       7.0       -.090       -.673     1.212\g
    Colorado           .27        .57      41.5       4.2       -.618       -.194      .111\g
    Connecticut       1.53       1.89      37.4       3.6       -.440       -.227     -.022\g
    Delaware           .38        .56      65.2       7.2       -.162       -.706      .074\g
    Florida            .62        .75      49.4       6.7       -.580       -.688     -.123\g
    Georgia            .40        .81      50.4       7.6       -.399       -.276      .108\g
    Idaho              .66       1.10      61.8       7.4       -.179       -.315     -.079\g
    Illinois          2.01       3.08      31.2       6.0       -.128       -.526      .029\g
    Indiana            .78       1.19      51.5       4.8       -.082       -.205      .037\g
    Iowa               .91       1.27      47.0       4.0       -.080       -.203     -.035\g
    Kansas             .18        .52      41.6       4.6       -.497       -.275      .021\g
    Kentucky           .59        .87      62.5      10.6       -.272       -.613       -.108
    Louisiana          .14        .70      55.3      10.9     -.041\g       -.508      .077\g
    Maine              .86       1.43      46.6       5.3       -.294       -.252        .000
    Maryland           .04        .38      38.4       4.6       -.650       -.257       -.134
    Massachusett      2.98       3.60      29.3       4.9       -.375       -.253       -.136
     s
    Michigan          2.71       3.11      31.5       4.2       -.428       -.353       -.090
    Minnesota          .96       1.25      51.4       3.7       -.510       -.121        .132
    Mississippi        .22       1.03      53.9      16.2     -.015\g       -.424      .131\g
    Missouri          5.97       7.41      41.5       6.8        .000       -.335        .107
    Montana            .00        .54      40.6       5.3        .000       -.344       1.245
    Nebraska           .39        .70      32.5       4.3       -.257       -.097        .151
    Nevada             .00        .00      53.8       5.1       -.934       -.292     -.375\g
    New               6.69       5.50       8.1       2.9       -.490       -.227      .048\g
     Hampshire
    New Jersey        3.45       4.03      41.5       3.7       -.055       -.333      .012\g
    New Mexico         .00        .28      74.8       9.8        .000       -.894       2.449
    New York           .00        .00      40.3       5.3       -.675       -.306       -.354
    North              .53       1.05      62.7       7.3       -.090       -.420      .002\g
     Carolina
    North Dakota       .78       2.53      43.8       7.9     -.052\g       -.237        .312
    Ohio              1.48       2.19      39.5       5.5       -.189       -.296     -.011\g
    Oklahoma           .76       1.09      65.5       6.8       -.243       -.242        .174
    Oregon            1.57       2.32      29.3       5.9     -.059\g       -.347        .144
    Pennsylvania      1.31       1.89      41.0       4.5       -.271       -.321       -.091
    Rhode Island       .23        .42      37.4       4.5       -.673       -.184       -.095
    South              .21        .66      47.8       8.5       -.464       -.353      .069\g
     Carolina
    South Dakota      1.30       2.51      26.3       8.0     -.189\g       -.273        .283
    Tennessee          .31       1.16      42.3       9.9       -.126       -.256      .063\g
    Texas              .39        .58      44.1       6.7       -.714       -.497      .043\g
    Utah               .02        .59      56.1       6.2       -.313       +.093        .651
    Virginia          1.05       1.47      33.8       5.5       -.564       -.252     -.032\g
    Washington         .70       1.11      71.2       4.8       -.104       -.240        .110
    West               .09        .27      67.0       7.6       -.229       -.695      .103\g
     Virginia
    Wisconsin         1.20       1.55      44.2       4.1       -.229       -.246     -.018\g
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a This is the amount of extra state funding per poor student a
    district received for every dollar of state funding received for each
    student.

    \b This is the amount of extra combined state and federal funding per
    poor student a district received compared to each dollar of combined
    state and federal funding received for each student.  In our
    analysis, federal impact aid is considered part of local funding, so
    this weight does not include the effect of federal impact aid
    funding.

    \c Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding and not
    part of federal funding.

    \d This is the elasticity of state funding relative to district
    income controlling for districts' percentage of poor students.  An
    elasticity of 0 signifies no tax-base targeting.  The elasticity was
    constrained to be less than or equal to .000 in all states.

    \e This is the elasticity of local tax base relative to district
    poverty rate.

    \f This is the elasticity of local tax effort relative to district
    poverty rate.

    \g Elasticity is not statistically different from 0.

                             Table V.4

                     Regression Results (N=47)

                            Regression        Beta
                            coefficien  coefficien           t
    Independent variables            t           t   statistic
    ----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Tax effort differences      -.0947      -.5624      -5.280
     between high-and low-
     poverty districts
    Combined state and          -.3190      -.5233      -4.071
     federal share of
     total funding
    Tax base differences        -.2556      -.5046      -4.468
     between high-and low-
     poverty districts
    Combined state and          -.0270      -.4188      -3.760
     federal targeting to
     poor students
    Constant                     .1774          NA       3.972
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Adjusted R square = .569.

    As the beta coefficients in table V.4 show, differences in tax
    efforts had the greatest effect on reducing the total funding
    gap--the greater the tax effort of high-poverty districts compared
    with low-poverty districts, the lower the funding gap.  Combined
    state and federal share of total funding had the second greatest
    effect on reducing the funding gap:  the larger the combined share,
    the less the funding gap.  Differences in tax bases between high- and
    low-poverty districts had the third greatest effect:  the greater the
    tax base of high-poverty districts compared with low-poverty
    districts, the lower the gap.  Combined state and federal targeting
    to poor students also had the effect of reducing the gap, although to
    a lesser extent than the other three variables.

    GUIDE TO THE STATE PROFILES
    ========================================================== Appendix VI

    Appendixes VII through LIII contain profiles for 47 states.  Each
    profile provides the critical data resulting from our analysis of
    state and federal targeting to poor students and the effect that
    state and federal funds had on the funding levels among high- and
    low-poverty districts.  In addition, each profile provides
    information in tabular and graphic form on the distribution of local,
    state, and federal funding to regular school districts in school year
    1991-92.  The profiles show state averages for districts in five
    groups according to increasing proportions of poor students.\68 For
    example, the highest poverty group typically contains about 20
    percent of a state's students and has the highest proportion of poor
    students.  All funding data in the profiles were adjusted for
    statewide differences in geographic cost and student need.

    Data used in the profiles were based mainly on the Department of
    Education's Common Core of Data (CCD) for school districts for the
    1991-92 school year.  In some cases, we obtained data directly from
    state education offices, and we imputed data for a district when the
    source lacked data.  For example, we imputed cost index data for 310
    districts, including 18 in Alaska and 72 in New York (see app.  I).
    Funding data included all local, state, and federal revenue for all
    purposes, including maintenance and operations, transportation, and
    capital expenditures and debt service.\69 Federal impact aid was
    considered part of local revenue because states consider federal
    funding from this program as part of a district's local education
    resources.

    The numbers in the profiles' tables may not add due to rounding.

    --------------------
    \68 Each of the five groups typically had about the same student
    population.  In some states, however, the groups may have had large
    differences in the number of students because districts cannot be
    divided into smaller units.  In a few states, one district (for
    example, in Las Vegas and New York City) accounted for more than 20
    percent of the student population and represented the entire group.
    Nevada's districts were divided into four groups because of the
    distribution of the student population.

    \69 Because the CCD does not report separate data on local funding at
    the district level devoted to capital expenditures and debt service,
    we could not exclude these funding categories from our analysis.

    STATE PROFILE:  ALABAMA
    ========================================================= Appendix VII

                            Table VII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Alabama

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $3,696

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            27%
    State share                                            62%
    Federal share                                          11%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.27
    Federal funding weight                               $3.65
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.92
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                101%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       66%
    State + local funds                                    19%
    Federal + state + local funds                           6%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table VII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Alabama
    averaged $3,696.  The localities provided about 27 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 62 percent; federal
    funds provided about 11 percent.

    Alabama's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.27 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.92 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Alabama's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 66 percent to about 19 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    6 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Alabama, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made a slightly greater effort
    to raise local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of
    poor students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group
    made a tax effort that was 101 percent of that made in districts in
    the lowest poverty group.\70

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table VII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table VII.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Alabama districts.  (Fig.  VII.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table VII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           128          17          28          32          17          34
    Total pupils          719,789     145,205     144,850     128,493     161,412     139,829
    Poverty rate             23.8        10.7        17.8        22.5        28.3        39.5
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $15.66      $16.20      $16.87      $16.01      $13.20      $16.33
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table VII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a        $998    $1,290    $1,115      $977      $842      $776      1.66         66
    State         2,287     2,284     2,382     2,315     2,272     2,238      1.02         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,286    $3,575    $3,498    $3,292    $3,113    $3,015      1.19         19
    Federal\a       411       233       348       399       484       589       .40         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $3,696    $3,808    $3,845    $3,691    $3,597    $3,603      1.06          6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure VII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Alabama, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Alabama education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Alabama's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on federal funding
    between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional
    technical information about Alabama appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \70 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  ALASKA
    ======================================================== Appendix VIII

                            Table VIII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                               Alaska

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $9,054

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            27%
    State share                                            68%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $1.81
    Federal funding weight                               $9.04
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $2.42
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                240%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                        2%
    State + local funds                                   -19%
    Federal + state + local funds                         -22%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table VIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Alaska
    averaged $9,054.  The localities provided about 27 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 68 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Alaska's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $1.81 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $2.42 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Alaska's targeting efforts and state share of total funding more than
    eliminated the 2-percent local funding gap between the lowest and
    highest poverty groups.  Consequently, the lowest poverty group had
    about 19 percent less funding than the highest poverty group.  The
    lowest poverty group had about 22 percent less funding after the
    addition of federal funding.  (To compare the total funding gap with
    those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap
    results using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Alaska, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 240 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\71

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table VIII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups
    with districts of increasing proportions of poor students.  Table
    VIII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were
    distributed among the five groups of Alaska districts.  (Fig.  VIII.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table VIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            52          15           3           1           4          29
    Total pupils          117,331      16,886      16,620      44,749      11,798      27,278
    Poverty rate             11.2         5.4         8.5         9.2         9.6        20.5
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $29.57      $26.17      $21.61      $15.92      $65.60      $62.77
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table VIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,428    $2,762    $1,809    $1,653    $5,001    $2,699      1.02          2
    State         6,137     5,566     5,658     5,243     7,228     7,571       .74         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $8,565    $8,328    $7,468    $6,896     2,228   $10,270       .81        -19
    Federal\a       488       408       410       291       411       867       .47         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $9,054    $8,737    $7,877    $7,187   $12,640   $11,137       .78        -22
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure VIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Alaska, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Alaska education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Alaska's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Alaska appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \71 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  ARIZONA
    ========================================================== Appendix IX

                             Table IX.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Arizona

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,959

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                          50.6%
    State share                                          42.5%
    Federal share                                         6.9%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.50
    Federal funding weight                               $4.91
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.10
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                159%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       55%
    State + local funds                                    16%
    Federal + state + local funds                           5%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table IX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Arizona
    averaged $4,959.  The localities provided about 51 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 43 percent; federal
    funds provided about 7 percent.

    Arizona's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $0.50 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.10 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Arizona's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 55 percent to about 16 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    5 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Arizona, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 159 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\72

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table IX.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table IX.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Arizona districts.  (Fig.  IX.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                            Table IX.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           193          28          16          50          28          71
    Total pupils          647,354     125,543     133,096     122,414     143,319     122,982
    Poverty rate             21.0         7.1        12.4        17.7        24.9        43.0
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $25.25      $27.19      $18.71      $25.15      $23.78      $43.29
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                             Table IX.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                  Higest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,510    $3,130    $2,613    $2,204    $2,591    $2,024      1.55         55
    State         2,109     1,982     2,086     2,164     2,036     2,365       .84         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,619    $5,112    $4,699    $4,367    $4,627    $4,389      1.16         16
    Federal\a       340       144       198       283       391       633       .23         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,959    $5,256    $4,897    $4,651    $5,017    $5,022      1.05          5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure IX.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Arizona, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Arizona education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Arizona's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Arizona appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \72 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  ARKANSAS
    =========================================================== Appendix X

                             Table X.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Arkansas

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,164

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            32%
    State share                                            59%
    Federal share                                           9%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.29
    Federal funding weight                               $3.85
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.76
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                106%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       34%
    State + local funds                                     8%
    Federal + state + local funds                          -2%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table X.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Arkansas
    averaged $4,164.  The localities provided about 32 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 59 percent; federal
    funds provided about 9 percent.

    Arkansas's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.29 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.76 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Arkansas's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 34 percent to about 8 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to the
    extent that the lowest poverty group had 2 percent less funding.  (To
    compare the total funding gap with those of other states, see table
    V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using a regression
    analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Arkansas, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 106 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\73

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table X.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table X.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Arkansas districts.  (Fig.  X.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                            Table X.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           316          53          52          61          72          78
    Total pupils          430,420      81,150      91,540      86,791      86,047      84,892
    Poverty rate             24.6        12.4        17.1        21.8        28.4        43.1
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $23.32      $21.77      $22.28      $25.62      $23.43      $23.14
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                             Table X.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,314    $1,310    $1,369    $1,736    $1,200      $975      1.34         34
    State         2,476     2,392     2,527     2,540     2,524     2,444       .98         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,790    $3,702    $3,896    $4,275    $3,724    $3,419      1.08          8
    Federal\a       374       233       285       345       408       592       .39         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,164    $3,935    $4,181    $4,621    $4,132    $4,012       .98         -2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure X.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Arkansas, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Arkansas education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Arkansas's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Arkansas appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \73 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  CALIFORNIA
    ========================================================== Appendix XI

                             Table XI.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                             California

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,902

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            29%
    State share                                            64%
    Federal share                                           7%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $1.15
    Federal funding weight                               $4.43
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.59
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 94%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      177%
    State + local funds                                    14%
    Federal + state + local funds                           5%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in California
    averaged $4,902.  The localities provided about 29 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 64 percent; federal
    funds provided about 7 percent.

    California's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $1.15 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.59 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    California's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 177 percent to about 14 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 5 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In California, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 94 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\74

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XI.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XI.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of California districts.  (Fig.  XI.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                            Table XI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           971         298         186         167         114         206
    Total pupils        4,978,164     984,949   1,012,882     989,719     729,215   1,261,399
    Poverty rate             18.4         5.7        11.8        17.5        23.7        31.3
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $11.68      $11.66      $11.57      $11.08      $14.16      $10.91
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                             Table XI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,426    $2,315    $1,639    $1,381    $1,295      $835      2.77        177
    State         3,131     2,656     3,063     3,167     3,127     3,507      0.76         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,557    $4,971    $4,703    $4,548    $4,421    $4,342      1.14         14
    Federal\a       344       154       227       313       395       547      0.28         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,902    $5,126    $4,930    $4,861    $4,816    $4,889      1.05          5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       California, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A California education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in California's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about California appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \74 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  COLORADO
    ========================================================= Appendix XII

                            Table XII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Colorado

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,288

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                          54.3%
    State share                                          41.5%
    Federal share                                         4.2%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.27
    Federal funding weight                               $5.69
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.57
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                103%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of po students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       24%
    State + local funds                                     9%
    Federal + state + local funds                           3%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Colorado
    averaged $5,288.  The localities provided about 54 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 42 percent; federal
    funds provided about 4 percent.

    Colorado's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.27 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.57 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Colorado's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 24 percent to about 9 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    3 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Colorado, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 103 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\75

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XII.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Colorado districts.  (Fig.  XII.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           174          17          16          36          56          49
    Total pupils          592,435      87,165     141,216     120,273     125,526     118,255
    Poverty rate             14.8         4.7         8.1        12.0        18.7        28.9
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $34.86      $36.55      $29.84      $36.96      $35.73      $37.61
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,872    $3,718    $2,972    $2,584    $2,409    $2,999      1.24         24
    State         2,194     1,879     2,197     2,336     2,421     2,116       .89         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,066    $5,597    $5,170    $4,920    $4,830    $5,115      1.09          9
    Federal\a       222        94       156       192       244       397       .24         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,288    $5,691    $5,325    $5,112    $5,074    $5,511      1.03          3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Colorado, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Colorado education official reported that the state had targeted
    much more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Colorado's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Colorado appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \75 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  CONNECTICUT
    ======================================================== Appendix XIII

                            Table XIII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                            Connecticut

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $8,531

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            59%
    State share                                            37%
    Federal share                                           4%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $1.53
    Federal funding weight                               $6.99
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.89
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 81%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      172%
    State + local funds                                    27%
    Federal + state + local funds                          17%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    Connecticut averaged $8,531.  The localities provided about 59
    percent of total funding for education; the state provided about 37
    percent; federal funds provided about 4 percent.

    Connecticut's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $1.53 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $1.89 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    Connecticut's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 172 percent to about 27 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 17 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Connecticut, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 81 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\76

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XIII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XIII.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Connecticut districts.  (Fig.  XIII.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           159          48          30          46          27           8
    Total pupils          462,403      93,882      86,648      99,483      85,983      96,407
    Poverty rate             10.4         1.7         3.2         5.1         9.5        31.5
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $33.98      $35.55      $34.54      $35.40      $33.30      $28.84
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $5,035    $6,470    $6,481    $5,458    $5,075    $2,378      2.72        172
    State         3,186     2,399     2,402     3,091     3,158     4,597       .52         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $8,221    $8,868    $8,883    $8,549    $8,233    $6,975      1.27         27
    Federal\a       310       125       147       185       309       689       .18         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $8,531    $8,993    $9,029    $8,734    $8,541    $7,664      1.17         17
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Connecticut, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Connecticut education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Connecticut's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Connecticut appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \76 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  DELAWARE
    ========================================================= Appendix XIV

                            Table XIV.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Delaware

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,008

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            28%
    State share                                            65%
    Federal share                                           7%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.38
    Federal funding weight                               $3.15
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.56
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                130%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       65%
    State + local funds                                     7%
    Federal + state + local funds                           4%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Delaware
    averaged $6,008.  The localities provided about 28 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 65 percent; federal
    funds provided about 7 percent.

    Delaware's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.38 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.56 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Delaware's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 65 percent to about 7 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    4 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Delaware, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 130 percent of the effort made in districts in the
    lowest poverty group.\77

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XIV.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XIV.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Delaware districts.  (Fig.  XIV.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XIV.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            16           2           4           2           3           5
    Total pupils           97,986      14,025      28,883      21,886      13,140      20,052
    Poverty rate             12.2         7.6         9.8        11.4        12.7        19.6
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $15.40      $13.23      $14.26      $20.53      $10.10      $17.14
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XIV.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,660    $1,984    $1,960    $2,022      $695    $1,203      1.65         65
    State         3,916     3,622     3,750     3,980     4,349     4,046       .90         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,577    $5,606    $5,710    $6,002    $5,044    $5,248      1.07          7
    Federal\a       431       322       372       359       817       435       .74         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,008    $5,927    $6,083    $6,361    $5,861    $5,683      1.04          4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XIV.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Delaware, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Delaware education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Delaware's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Delaware appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \77 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  FLORIDA
    ========================================================== Appendix XV

                             Table XV.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Florida

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,964

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            44%
    State share                                            49%
    Federal share                                           7%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.62
    Federal funding weight                               $4.18
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.75
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 99%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       58%
    State + local funds                                     7%
    Federal + state + local funds                           3%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Florida
    averaged $5,964.  The localities provided about 44 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 49 percent; federal
    funds provided about 7 percent.

    Florida's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.62 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.75 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Florida's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 58 percent to about 7 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    3 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Florida, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made slightly less effort to
    raise local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of
    poor students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group
    made a tax effort that was 99 percent of that made in districts in
    the lowest poverty group.\78

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XV.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XV.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Florida districts.  (Fig.  XV.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                            Table XV.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            67          13           5           8          18          23
    Total pupils        1,929,239     368,530     361,711     365,238     381,616     452,144
    Poverty rate             18.6        12.9        15.2        17.4        20.0        25.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $26.56      $25.11      $29.24      $27.52      $25.31      $24.89
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                             Table XV.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,617    $2,937    $3,832    $2,506    $2,194    $1,853      1.58         58
    State         2,946     2,716     2,390     2,901     3,164     3,451       .79         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,564    $5,652    $6,223    $5,407    $5,358    $5,304      1.07          7
    Federal\a       400       293       367       360       468       490       .60         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,964    $5,946    $6,590    $5,767     $5826    $5,793      1.03          3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XV.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Florida, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Florida education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Florida's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Florida appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \78 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  GEORGIA
    ========================================================= Appendix XVI

                            Table XVI.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Georgia

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,688

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            42%
    State share                                            50%
    Federal share                                           8%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.40
    Federal funding weight                               $4.35
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.81
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                122%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       32%
    State + local funds                                     7%
    Federal + state + local funds                          -3%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XVI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Georgia
    averaged $4,688.  The localities provided about 42 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 50 percent; federal
    funds provided about 8 percent.

    Georgia's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.40 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.81 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Georgia's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 32 percent to about 7 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding eliminated the funding gap between these groups to the extent
    that the lowest poverty group had about 3 percent less funding than
    the highest poverty group.  (To compare the total funding gap with
    those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap
    results using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Georgia, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 122 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\79

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XVI.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XVI.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Georgia districts.  (Fig.  XVI.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XVI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           183          11          17          57          35          63
    Total pupils        1,177,358     236,284     235,528     237,795     238,664     229,087
    Poverty rate             19.6         5.8        11.7        18.1        26.3        36.7
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $26.51      $25.65      $28.65      $23.81      $22.72      $31.37
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XVI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,972    $2,308    $2,677    $1,429    $1,554    $1,748      1.32         32
    State         2,361     2,175     2,097     2,579     2,632     2,451       .89         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,333    $4,483    $4,775    $4,008    $4,186    $4,199      1.07          7
    Federal\a       354       130       252       355       481       569       .23         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,688    $4,614    $5,027    $4,363    $4,666    $4,768       .97         -3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XVI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Georgia, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Georgia education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Georgia's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Georgia appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \79 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  IDAHO
    ======================================================== Appendix XVII

                            Table XVII.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: Idaho

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $3,805

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            31%
    State share                                            62%
    Federal share                                           7%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.66
    Federal funding weight                               $4.73
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.10
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 90%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       32%
    State + local funds                                     7%
    Federal + state + local funds                           2%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XVII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Idaho
    averaged $3,805.  The localities provided about 31 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 62 percent; federal
    funds provided about 7 percent.

    Idaho's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.66 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.10 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Idaho's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 32 percent to about 7 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    2 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Idaho, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 90 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\80

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XVII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups
    with districts of increasing proportions of poor students.  Table
    XVII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were
    distributed among the five groups of Idaho districts.  (Fig.  XVII.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XVII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           108          25          12          13          22          36
    Total pupils          216,503      37,444      49,844      41,646      46,426      41,143
    Poverty rate             15.8         9.0        13.1        15.2        17.4        23.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $22.68      $23.10      $23.58      $22.53      $22.69      $20.75
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XVII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,174    $1,151    $1,550    $1,236    $1,018      $874      1.32         32
    State         2,350     2,419     2,220     2,389     2,341     2,476       .98         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,523    $3,570    $3,770    $3,625    $3,359    $3,350      1.07          7
    Federal\a       281       211       218       276       335       369       .57         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $3,805    $3,781    $3,988    $3,901    $3,694    $3,719      1.02          2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XVII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Idaho, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Idaho education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Idaho's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Idaho appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \80 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  ILLINOIS
    ======================================================= Appendix XVIII

                           Table XVIII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Illinois

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,295

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            63%
    State share                                            31%
    Federal share                                           6%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $2.01
    Federal funding weight                               $5.93
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $3.08
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                131%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      158%
    State + local funds                                    63%
    Federal + state + local funds                          42%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XVIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Illinois
    averaged $5,295.  The localities provided about 63 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 31 percent; federal
    funds provided about 6 percent.

    Illinois's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $2.01 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $3.08 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Illinois's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 158 percent to about 63 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    42 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Illinois, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 131 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\81

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XVIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XVIII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of Illinois districts.  (Fig.
    XVIII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XVIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           934         197         236         285         190          26
    Total pupils        1,821,061     362,025     364,654     364,813     287,511     442,058
    Poverty rate             16.4         2.3         6.3        13.2        22.9        34.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $24.30      $23.10      $24.96      $22.92      $20.35      $30.36
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XVIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,325    $5,628    $3,966    $2,906    $1,903    $2,178      2.58        158
    State         1,652       977     1,458     1,908     2,258     1,872       .52         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,976    $6,605    $5,424    $4,814    $4,161    $4,050      1.63         63
    Federal\a       319        81       133       218       347       658       .12         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,295    $6,686    $5,557    $5,033    $4,508    $4,708      1.42         42
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XVIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Illinois, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Illinois education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Illinois's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Illinois appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \81 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  INDIANA
    ========================================================= Appendix XIX

                            Table XIX.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Indiana

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,248

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                          43.7%
    State share                                          51.5%
    Federal share                                         4.8%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.78
    Federal funding weight                               $4.93
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.19
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                110%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       43%
    State + local funds                                    14%
    Federal + state + local funds                           7%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XIX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Indiana
    averaged $5,248.  The localities provided about 44 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 52 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Indiana's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.78 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.19 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Indiana's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 43 percent to about 14 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    7 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Indiana, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 110 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\82

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XIX.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XIX.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Indiana districts.  (Fig.  XIX.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XIX.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           294          65          78          60          51          40
    Total pupils          952,639     187,161     193,705     194,460     189,234     188,079
    Poverty rate             13.5         4.3         7.9        11.8        15.9        27.6
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $30.04      $28.60      $32.78      $29.94      $27.99      $31.41
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XIX.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,293    $2,757    $2,515    $2,153    $2,163    $1,930      1.43         43
    State         2,703     2,667     2,651     2,735     2,632     2,846       .94         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,996    $5,424    $5,166    $4,889    $4,795    $4,776      1.14         14
    Federal\a       253       129       177       258       277       401       .32         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,248    $5,553    $5,343    $5,147    $5,072    $5,177      1.07          7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XIX.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Indiana, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Indiana education official reported that the state had targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Indiana's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Indiana appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \82 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  IOWA
    ========================================================== Appendix XX

                             Table XX.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: Iowa

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,051

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            49%
    State share                                            47%
    Federal share                                           4%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.91
    Federal funding weight                               $4.72
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.27
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 92%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       34%
    State + local funds                                    15%
    Federal + state + local funds                          11%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Iowa
    averaged $5,051.  The localities provided about 49 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 47 percent; federal
    funds provided about 4 percent.

    Iowa's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.91 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.27 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Iowa's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced the
    local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups from
    about 34 percent to about 15 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    11 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Iowa, districts with the highest
    proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local revenue
    than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 92 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\83

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XX.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XX.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Iowa districts.  (Fig.  XX.1 provides table
    information in graphic form.)

                                            Table XX.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           419         100          94          83          64          78
    Total pupils          487,004      96,755      92,876     102,912      94,428     100,033
    Poverty rate             13.8         5.7        10.4        13.4        17.4        21.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $35.26      $37.81      $36.45      $33.45      $33.82      $34.88
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                             Table XX.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,474    $2,904    $2,692    $2,486    $2,298    $2,163      1.34         34
    State         2,375     2,362     2,361     2,346     2,406     2,431       .97         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,850    $5,266    $5,053    $4,833    $4,704    $4,594      1.15         15
    Federal\a       201       122       182       198       253       249       .49         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,051    $5,388    $5,235    $5,030    $4,957    $4,843      1.11         11
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XX.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Iowa, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Iowa education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Iowa's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Iowa appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \83 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  KANSAS
    ========================================================= Appendix XXI

                            Table XXI.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                               Kansas

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,240

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                          53.8%
    State share                                          41.6%
    Federal share                                         4.6%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.18
    Federal funding weight                               $5.79
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.52
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                122%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       39%
    State + local funds                                    10%
    Federal + state + local funds                           4%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Kansas
    averaged $5,240.  The localities provided about 54 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 42 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Kansas' state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.18 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.52 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Kansas' targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 39 percent to about 10 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    4 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Kansas, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 122 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\84

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXI.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXI.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Kansas districts.  (Fig.  XXI.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           304          32          89          63          45          75
    Total pupils          437,033      86,320      90,037      86,272      83,901      90,503
    Poverty rate             13.8         4.1         9.1        14.3        17.6        23.6
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $37.40      $31.29      $42.92      $39.41      $38.84      $38.14
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,820    $3,253    $2,848    $2,742    $3,072    $2,342      1.39         39
    State         2,181     1,935     2,627     2,157     2,042     2,371       .82         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,001    $5,188    $5,475    $4,899    $5,114    $4,713      1.10         10
    Federal\a       239       112       193       242       273       365       .31         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,240    $5,300    $5,668    $5,140    $5,387    $5,078      1.04          4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Kansas, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Kansas education official reported that the state had targeted more
    funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.  More
    information on changes in Kansas' school finance system made between
    1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears in table
    LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between 1991-92 and
    1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical information
    about Kansas appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \84 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  KENTUCKY
    ======================================================== Appendix XXII

                            Table XXII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Kentucky

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,174

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            27%
    State share                                            63%
    Federal share                                          11%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.59
    Federal funding weight                               $2.91
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.87
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 99%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      104%
    State + local funds                                     6%
    Federal + state + local funds                          -3%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Kentucky
    averaged $4,174.  The localities provided about 27 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 63 percent; federal
    funds provided about 11 percent.

    Kentucky's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.59 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.87 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Kentucky's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 104 percent to about 6 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding eliminated the funding gap between these groups to the extent
    that the lowest poverty group had about 3 percent less funding than
    the highest poverty group.  (To compare the total funding gap with
    those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap
    results using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Kentucky, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made slightly less effort to
    raise local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of
    poor students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group
    made a tax effort that was 99 percent of that made in districts in
    the lowest poverty group.\85

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXII.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Kentucky districts.  (Fig.  XXII.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           175          32          17          33          42          51
    Total pupils          633,901     127,769      88,994     159,415     130,508     127,215
    Poverty rate             25.1        12.1        18.7        21.5        29.9        42.5
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $17.41      $15.71      $19.19      $19.05      $15.96      $15.63
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,122    $1,177    $1,499    $1,561      $809      $576      2.04        104
    State         2,609     2,488     2,428     2,446     2,824     2,883       .86         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,731    $3,666    $3,926    $4,007    $3,634    $3,460      1.06          6
    Federal\a       444       280       307       480       478       610       .46         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,174    $3,945    $4,234    $4,487    $4,112    $4,069       .97         -3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Kentucky, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Kentucky education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Kentucky's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Kentucky appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \85 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  LOUISIANA
    ======================================================= Appendix XXIII

                           Table XXIII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                             Louisiana

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,397

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            34%
    State share                                            55%
    Federal share                                          11%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.14
    Federal funding weight                               $2.98
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.70
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                126%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       15%
    State + local funds                                    11%
    Federal + state + local funds                           2%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Louisiana
    averaged $4,397.  The localities provided about 34 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 55 percent; federal
    funds provided about 11 percent.

    Louisiana's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.14 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.70 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Louisiana's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 15 percent to about 11 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 2 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Louisiana, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 126 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\86

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXIII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of Louisiana districts.  (Fig.
    XXIII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XXIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            65           8           6          16          23          12
    Total pupils          753,188     153,193     152,839     130,552     172,681     143,923
    Poverty rate             31.8        20.0        24.1        31.3        36.8        46.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $25.14      $22.25      $24.19      $26.57      $26.51      $28.06
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XXIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,487    $1,749    $1,659    $1,278    $1,247    $1,524      1.15         15
    State         2,433     2,490     2,478     2,432     2,487     2,291      1.09         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,920    $4,240    $4,137    $3,710    $3,734    $3,815      1.11         11
    Federal\a       477       334       406       442       530       664       .50         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,397    $4,574    $4,543    $4,152    $4,264    $4,480      1.02          2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to this analysis.

       Figure XXIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Louisiana, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Louisiana education official reported that the state had targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Louisiana's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Louisiana appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \86 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  MAINE
    ======================================================== Appendix XXIV

                            Table XXIV.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: Maine

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,017

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            48%
    State share                                            47%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.86
    Federal funding weight                               $6.81
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.43
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 99%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       31%
    State + local funds                                    10%
    Federal + state + local funds                           4%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Maine
    averaged $6,017.  The localities provided about 48 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 47 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Maine's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.86 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.43 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Maine's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 31 percent to about 10 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    4 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Maine, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made slightly less effort to
    raise local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of
    poor students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group
    made a tax effort that was 99 percent of that made in districts in
    the lowest poverty group.\87

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXIV.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXIV.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Maine districts.  (Fig.  XXIV.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXIV.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           227          44          52          43          38          50
    Total pupils          211,295      42,492      42,020      44,525      40,365      41,893
    Poverty rate             13.7         4.7         9.7        13.7        17.6        23.0
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $37.84      $38.93      $35.64      $40.15      $35.03      $38.51
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXIV.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,891    $3,702    $2,796    $2,973    $2,131    $2,833      1.31         31
    State         2,807     2,472     3,041     2,698     3,139     2,784       .89         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,697    $6,174    $5,837    $5,672    $5,270    $5,617      1.10         10
    Federal\a       319       199       251       290       358       494       .40         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,017    $6,373    $6,088    $5,961    $5,628    $6,111      1.04          4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to this analysis.

       Figure XXIV.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Maine, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Maine education official reported that the state had targeted less
    funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.  More
    information on changes in Maine's school finance system made between
    1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears in table
    LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between 1991-92 and
    1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical information
    about Maine appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \87 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  MARYLAND
    ========================================================= Appendix XXV

                            Table XXV.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Maryland

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,349

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            57%
    State share                                            38%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.04
    Federal funding weight                               $6.19
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.38
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 65%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      262%
    State + local funds                                    80%
    Federal + state + local funds                          63%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Maryland
    averaged $6,349.  The localities provided about 57 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 38 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Maryland's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.04 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.38 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Maryland's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 262 percent to about 80 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    63 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Maryland, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 65 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\88

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXV.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXV.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Maryland districts.  (Fig.  XXV.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXV.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            24           3           3           3          13           2
    Total pupils          736,238     161,462     113,833     155,519     183,901     121,523
    Poverty rate             11.3         5.0         6.1         6.9        10.4        31.5
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $31.43      $35.65      $33.57      $28.89      $30.78      $23.29
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXV.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,619    $5,737    $3,697    $3,190    $3,658    $1,585      3.62        262
    State         2,438     1,920     2,592     2,635     2,483     2,661       .72         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $6,057    $7,657    $6,289    $5,824    $6,141    $4,246      1.80         80
    Federal\a       292       179       190       256       265       567       .32         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,349    $7,836    $6,479    $6,080    $6,406    $4,813      1.63         63
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXV.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Maryland, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Maryland education official reported that the state had targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Maryland's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Maryland appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \88 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  MASSACHUSETTS
    ======================================================== Appendix XXVI

                            Table XXVI.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                           Massachusetts

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,601

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            66%
    State share                                            29%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $2.98
    Federal funding weight                               $6.43
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $3.60
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 88%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       99%
    State + local funds                                    25%
    Federal + state + local funds                          14%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXVI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    Massachusetts averaged $6,601.  The localities provided about 66
    percent of total funding for education; the state provided about 29
    percent; federal funds provided about 5 percent.

    Massachusetts's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $2.98 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $3.60 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    Massachusetts's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 99 percent to about 25 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 14 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Massachusetts, districts with
    the highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise
    local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor
    students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made
    a tax effort that was 88 percent of that made in districts in the
    lowest poverty group.\89

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXVI.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXVI.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Massachusetts districts.  (Fig.  XXVI.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXVI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           265          87          75          58          36           9
    Total pupils          738,672     146,244     149,281     142,759     153,022     147,366
    Poverty rate             13.3         2.4         5.2         9.3        18.3        30.9
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $32.57      $34.79      $34.62      $33.50      $28.06      $30.50
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXVI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $4,347    $5,831    $5,285    $4,875    $3,196    $2,923      1.99         99
    State         1,932     1,244     1,464     1,567     2,480     2,734       .46         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $6,278    $7,075    $6,749    $6,442    $5,676    $5,656      1.25         25
    Federal\a       323       109       154       220       412       642       .17         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,601    $7,184    $6,903    $6,663    $6,087    $6,299      1.14         14
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXVI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Massachusetts, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Massachusetts education official reported that the state had
    targeted much more funding to high-poverty districts since school
    year 1991-92.  More information on changes in Massachusetts's school
    finance system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in
    other states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in
    federal funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Massachusetts appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \89 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  MICHIGAN
    ======================================================= Appendix XXVII

                           Table XXVII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Michigan

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,110

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            64%
    State share                                            32%
    Federal share                                           4%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $2.71
    Federal funding weight                               $5.49
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $3.11
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 82%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      193%
    State + local funds                                    37%
    Federal + state + local funds                          26%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXVII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Michigan
    averaged $6,110.  The localities provided about 64 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 32 percent; federal
    funds provided about 4 percent.

    Michigan's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $2.71 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $3.11 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Michigan's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 193 percent to about 37 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    26 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Michigan, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 82 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\90

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXVII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXVII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of Michigan districts.  (Fig.
    XXVII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XXVII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           558          73         113         159         161          52
    Total pupils        1,619,705     320,665     327,218     321,021     336,235     314,566
    Poverty rate             17.4         3.7         7.5        12.8        21.3        42.1
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $48.38      $49.26      $48.91      $50.13      $50.75      $40.50
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XXVII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,931    $6,050    $4,782    $3,612    $3,389    $2,065      2.93        193
    State         1,925       887     1,425     2,006     2,106     2,998       .30         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,856    $6,937    $6,207    $5,618    $5,495    $5,062      1.37         37
    Federal\a       254        92       127       182       280       535       .17         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,110    $7,029    $6,334    $5,800    $5,775    $5,598      1.26         26
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXVII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Michigan, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Michigan education official reported that the state had targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Michigan's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Michigan appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \90 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  MINNESOTA
    ====================================================== Appendix XXVIII

                           Table XXVIII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                             Minnesota

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,872

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            45%
    State share                                            51%
    Federal share                                           4%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.96
    Federal funding weight                               $6.57
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.25
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                111%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       25%
    State + local funds                                    -5%
    Federal + state + local funds                          -9%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXVIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding
    (local, state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    Minnesota averaged $5,872.  The localities provided about 45 percent
    of total funding for education; the state provided about 51 percent;
    federal funds provided about 4 percent.

    Minnesota's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.96 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.25 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Minnesota's targeting efforts and state share of total funding more
    than eliminated the 25-percent local funding gap between the lowest
    and highest poverty groups.  Consequently, the lowest poverty group
    had about 5 percent less funding than the highest poverty group.  The
    low-poverty group had about 9 percent less funding after the addition
    of federal funding.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Minnesota, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 111 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\91

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXVIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXVIII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of Minnesota districts.  (Fig.
    XXVIII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XXVIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           404          31          43          83         135         112
    Total pupils          741,835     144,806     150,165     153,726     146,038     147,100
    Poverty rate             12.1         4.1         6.4         9.5        15.0        25.9
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $31.84      $31.66      $31.30      $31.39      $28.62      $35.25
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XXVIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,636    $3,406    $2,398    $2,559    $1,876    $2,730      1.25         25
    State         3,019     2,235     3,110     3,018     3,755     3,214       .70         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,654    $5,641    $5,508    $5,577    $5,631    $5,945       .95         -5
    Federal\a       217       108       134       185       276       377       .29         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,872    $5,749    $5,642    $5,762    $5,907    $6,322       .91         -9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXVIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Minnesota, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Minnesota education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Minnesota's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Minnesota appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \91 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  MISSISSIPPI
    ======================================================== Appendix XXIX

                            Table XXIX.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                            Mississippi

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $3,386

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            30%
    State share                                            54%
    Federal share                                          16%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.22
    Federal funding weight                               $2.68
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.03
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                126%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       34%
    State + local funds                                    18%
    Federal + state + local funds                           1%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXIX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    Mississippi averaged $3,386.  The localities provided about 30
    percent of total funding for education; the state provided about 54
    percent; federal funds provided about 16 percent.

    Mississippi's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $.22 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $1.03 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    Mississippi's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 34 percent to about 18 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 1 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Mississippi, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 126 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\92

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXIX.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXIX.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Mississippi districts.  (Fig.  XXIX.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXIX.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           148          23          25          22          39          39
    Total pupils          496,277      95,917     103,702      98,779     100,903      96,976
    Poverty rate             32.9        16.4        26.0        30.8        38.2        53.3
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $19.75      $18.26      $19.73      $19.21      $19.82      $22.95
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXIX.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,016    $1,060    $1,021    $1,335      $897      $793      1.34         34
    State         1,823     1,930     1,820     1,792     1,885     1,735      1.11         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $2,839    $2,990    $2,841    $3,127    $2,781    $2,529      1.18         18
    Federal\a       547       341       454       528       633       770       .44         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $3,386    $3,331    $3,295    $3,655    $3,414    $3,299      1.01          1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXIX.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Mississippi, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Mississippi education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Mississippi's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Mississippi appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \92 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  MISSOURI
    ========================================================= Appendix XXX

                            Table XXX.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Missouri

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,272

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            52%
    State share                                            41%
    Federal share                                           7%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $5.97
    Federal funding weight                               $5.18
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $7.41
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                137%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       44%
    State + local funds                                    -7%
    Federal + state + local funds                         -14%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Missouri
    averaged $4,272.  The localities provided about 52 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 41 percent; federal
    funds provided about 7 percent.

    Missouri's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $5.97 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $7.41 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Missouri's targeting efforts and state share of total funding more
    than eliminated the 44-percent local funding gap between the lowest
    and highest poverty groups.  Consequently, the lowest poverty group
    had about 7 percent less funding than the highest poverty group.  The
    lowest poverty group had about 14 percent less funding after the
    addition of federal funding.  (To compare the total funding gap with
    those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap
    results using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Missouri, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 137 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\93

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXX.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXX.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Missouri districts.  (Fig.  XXX.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXX.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           538          53          76          99         169         141
    Total pupils          822,099     165,965     158,319     172,972     161,617     163,226
    Poverty rate             17.0         4.2         9.0        15.0        21.0        36.0
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $27.24      $26.03      $24.78      $26.52      $24.10      $35.56
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXX.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,208    $3,174    $2,041    $2,046    $1,530    $2,202      1.44         44
    State         1,773     1,414     1,449     1,498     1,667     2,735       .52         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,981    $4,588    $3,490    $3,544    $3,197    $4,937       .93         -7
    Federal\a       291       104       172       287       349       517       .20         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,272    $4,692    $3,662    $3,831    $3,546    $5,453       .86        -14
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXX.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Missouri, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Missouri education official reported that the state had targeted
    much more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Missouri's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Missouri appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \93 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  MONTANA
    ======================================================== Appendix XXXI

                            Table XXXI.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Montana

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,260

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            54%
    State share                                            41%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.00
    Federal funding weight                               $4.52
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.54
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                155%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       13%
    State + local funds                                    13%
    Federal + state + local funds                           8%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Montana
    averaged $5,260.  The localities provided about 54 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 41 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Montana's state funding had the effect of providing districts with no
    additional funding per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.54 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    State funding in Montana had no effect on the 13-percent local
    funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups.  The
    addition of federal funding reduced the funding gap between these
    groups to about 8 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with
    those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap
    results using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Montana, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 155 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\94

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXXI.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXXI.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Montana districts.  (Fig.  XXXI.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXXI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           480         150          40          50          43         197
    Total pupils          154,488      31,193      30,709      29,220      32,626      30,740
    Poverty rate             19.5        10.1        15.2        17.2        19.7        35.4
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $24.70      $26.73      $18.09      $25.07      $19.18      $41.41
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXXI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,842    $3,796    $2,784    $2,251    $2,320    $3,368      1.13         13
    State         2,137     2,346     2,229     2,119     2,062     2,079      1.13         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,980    $6,142    $5,012    $4,370    $4,382    $5,448      1.13         13
    Federal\a       281       240       226       245       237       438       .55         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,260    $6,383    $5,238    $4,615    $4,619    $5,886      1.08          8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Montana, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Montana education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Montana's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Montana appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \94 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  NEBRASKA
    ======================================================= Appendix XXXII

                           Table XXXII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Nebraska

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,448
    Sources of total funding
    Local share                                          63.2%
    State share                                          32.5%
    Federal share                                         4.3%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.39
    Federal funding weight                               $3.49
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.70
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 99%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                        8%
    State + local funds                                     7%
    Federal + state + local funds                           3%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Nebraska
    averaged $5,448.  The localities provided about 63 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 33 percent; federal
    funds provided about 4 percent.

    Nebraska's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.39 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.70 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Nebraska's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 8 percent to about 7 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    3 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Nebraska, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made slightly less effort to
    raise local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of
    poor students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group
    made a tax effort that was 99 percent of that made in districts in
    the lowest poverty group.\95

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXXII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXXII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of Nebraska districts.  (Fig.
    XXXII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XXXII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           678         233          89          60         103         193
    Total pupils          276,085      57,006      44,605      66,887      39,698      67,889
    Poverty rate             12.9         3.8         8.8        11.4        15.8        22.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $36.22      $34.16      $40.45      $35.41      $41.99      $33.85
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XXXII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,445    $3,564    $3,897    $3,475    $3,444    $3,303      1.08          8
    State         1,768     1,868     1,645     1,676     1,993     1,757      1.06         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,214    $5,432    $5,541    $5,151    $5,437    $5,060      1.07          7
    Federal\a       234       129       190       230       233       344       .38         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,448    $5,561    $5,731    $5,381    $5,670    $5,404      1.03          3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Nebraska, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Nebraska education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Nebraska's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Nebraska appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \95 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  NEVADA
    ====================================================== Appendix XXXIII

                           Table XXXIII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                               Nevada

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $3,810

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            41%
    State share                                            54%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.00
    Federal funding weight                               $2.85
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.00
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                104%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       43%
    State + local funds                                   -13%
    Federal + state + local funds                         -14%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding
    (local, state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    Nevada averaged $3,810.  The localities provided about 41 percent of
    total funding for education; the state provided about 54 percent;
    federal funds provided about 5 percent.

    Nevada's state funding had the effect of providing districts with no
    additional funding per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  The addition of federal funding had no effect on the amount
    of additional funding per poor student.  (To compare these amounts
    with those of other states, see table III.6 in app.  III.)

    State funding in Nevada more than eliminated the 43-percent local
    funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups.
    Consequently, the lowest poverty group had about 13 percent less
    funding than the highest poverty group.  The lowest poverty group had
    about 14 percent less funding after the addition of federal funding.
    (To compare the total funding gap with those of other states, see
    table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using a regression
    analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Nevada, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 104 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\96

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXXIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for four
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXXIII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the four groups of Nevada districts.  (Fig.
    XXXIII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                           Table XXXIII.2

              Demographic Information for Districts of
              Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                        School Year 1991-92

                                                        Highes
                                    Lowest                t
                                    povert              povert
                                      y                   y
                                    ------              ------
                              Stat   Group  Grou  Grou   Group
                                 e       1   p 2   p 3       4
    ------------------------  ----  ------  ----  ----  ------
    Total districts             17       8     5     1       3
    Total pupils              211,  27,741  49,2  129,   5,574
                               810            62   233
    Poverty rate (percent)    13.3     9.9  11.9  14.4    16.0
    Tax effort\a              $18.  $24.53  $16.  $17.  $25.49
                                14            21    62
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                          Table XXXIII.3

                               Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                             Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                               Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                               Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                           Year 1991-92

                                  Mean funding per weighted pupil
                               --------------------------------------
                                Lowest                       Highest
                               poverty                       poverty
                               --------                      --------
                                                                                      Percent
                                                                          Group 1  difference
                                                                          funding    (group 1
                                                                         compared    compared
                                                                       with group  with group
    Funding source      State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   4 funding          4)
    ---------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------
    Local\a            $1,566    $1,768    $1,620    $1,518    $1,234        1.43          43
    State               2,049     2,654     1,773     1,935     3,856         .69          \b
    =========================================================================================
    Subtotal           $3,615    $4,422    $3,393    $3,452    $5,090         .87         -13
    Federal\a             195       188       182       199       269         .70          \b
    =========================================================================================
    Total              $3,810    $4,610    $3,574    $3,651    $5,359         .86         -14
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Nevada, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Nevada education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Nevada's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Nevada appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \96 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  NEW HAMPSHIRE
    ======================================================= Appendix XXXIV

                           Table XXXIV.1

               Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: New
                             Hampshire

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,028

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            89%
    State share                                             8%
    Federal share                                           3%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $6.69
    Federal funding weight                               $4.69
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $5.50
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                101%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       49%
    State + local funds                                    35%
    Federal + state + local funds                          32%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in New
    Hampshire averaged $6,028.  The localities provided about 89 percent
    of total funding for education; the state provided about 8 percent;
    federal funds provided about 3 percent.

    New Hampshire's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $6.69 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $5.50 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    New Hampshire's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 49 percent to about 35 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 32 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In New Hampshire, districts with
    the highest proportions of poor students made a slightly greater
    effort to raise local revenue than districts with the lowest
    proportions of poor students.  Specifically, districts in the highest
    poverty group made a tax effort that was 101 percent of that made in
    districts in the lowest poverty group.\97

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXXIV.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXXIV.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of New Hampshire districts.
    (Fig.  XXXIV.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XXXIV.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           158          39          32          29          27          31
    Total pupils          173,044      36,760      32,679      33,586      36,105      33,914
    Poverty rate              7.6         2.6         4.6         7.5         9.6        13.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $50.23      $48.75      $50.63      $56.05      $47.66      $49.30
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XXXIV.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $5,364    $6,234    $5,581    $5,549    $5,360    $4,190      1.49         49
    State           486       417       409       540       351       740       .56         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,850    $6,651    $5,991    $6,088    $5,711    $4,930      1.35         35
    Federal\a       178       105       138       238       215       198       .53         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,028    $6,756    $6,129    $6,327    $5,926    $5,128      1.32         32
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXIV.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       New Hampshire, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A New Hampshire education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in New Hampshire's school
    finance system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in
    other states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in
    federal funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about New Hampshire appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \97 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  NEW JERSEY
    ======================================================== Appendix XXXV

                            Table XXXV.1

               Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: New
                               Jersey

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $9,605

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            55%
    State share                                            41%
    Federal share                                           4%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $3.45
    Federal funding weight                               $6.50
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $4.03
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                116%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      194%
    State + local funds                                    22%
    Federal + state + local funds                          13%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in New Jersey
    averaged $9,605.  The localities provided about 55 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 41 percent; federal
    funds provided about 4 percent.

    New Jersey's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $3.45 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $4.03 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    New Jersey's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 194 percent to about 22 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 13 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In New Jersey, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 116 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\98

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XXXV.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XXXV.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of New Jersey districts.  (Fig.  XXXV.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XXXV.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           550         153         114         121         136          26
    Total pupils        1,085,033     229,414     204,572     221,959     214,112     214,976
    Poverty rate             11.3         1.9         3.6         5.9        12.8        32.6
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $32.84      $33.08      $33.74      $30.84      $31.07      $38.34
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XXXV.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $5,269    $7,441    $6,668    $5,733    $4,392    $2,532      2.94        194
    State         3,985     2,759     3,242     3,684     4,236     5,850       .47         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $9,253   $10,200    $9,911    $9,417    $8,628    $8,382      1.22         22
    Federal\a       351       147       178       207       381       780       .19         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $9,605   $10,346   $10,089    $9,624    $9,009    $9,162      1.13         13
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXV.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       New Jersey, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A New Jersey education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in New Jersey's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about New Jersey appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \98 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  NEW MEXICO
    ======================================================= Appendix XXXVI

                           Table XXXVI.1

               Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: New
                               Mexico

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,353

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            15%
    State share                                            75%
    Federal share                                          10%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.00
    Federal funding weight                               $3.30
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.28
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                333%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                        1%
    State + local funds                                     9%
    Federal + state + local funds                           2%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXVI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in New Mexico
    averaged $4,353.  The localities provided about 15 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 75 percent; federal
    funds provided about 10 percent.

    New Mexico's state funding had the effect of providing districts no
    additional funding per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.28 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    State funding in New Mexico increased the local funding gap between
    the lowest and highest poverty groups from about 1 percent to about 9
    percent.  The addition of federal funding reduced the funding gap
    between these groups to about 2 percent.  (To compare the total
    funding gap with those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.
    For the funding gap results using a regression analysis, see table
    V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In New Mexico, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 333 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\99

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXXVI.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXXVI.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of New Mexico districts.
    (Fig.  XXXVI.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XXXVI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            88           9           4          25          25          25
    Total pupils          308,772      30,384      91,531      72,230      55,784      58,843
    Poverty rate             27.5        14.7        19.0        25.7        30.9        46.6
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $12.21      $10.06       $5.93      $13.72      $15.88      $33.46
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XXXVI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a        $674      $887      $451      $652      $719      $880      1.01          1
    State         3,254     3,329     3,422     3,244     3,366     2,975      1.12         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,928    $4,215    $3,873    $3,895    $4,085    $3,855      1.09          9
    Federal\a       425       471       278       331       436       723       .65         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,353    $4,686    $4,151    $4,226    $4,520    $4,578      1.02          2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXVI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       New Mexico, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A New Mexico education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in New Mexico's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about New Mexico appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \99 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  NEW YORK
    ====================================================== Appendix XXXVII

                           Table XXXVII.1

               Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: New
                                York

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $8,233

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                          54.3%
    State share                                          40.3%
    Federal share                                         5.3%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.00
    Federal funding weight                               $4.44
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.00
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 72%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      213%
    State + local funds                                    44%
    Federal + state + local funds                          34%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXVII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding
    (local, state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    New York averaged $8,233.  The localities provided about 54 percent
    of total funding for education; the state provided about 40 percent;
    federal funds provided about 5 percent.

    New York's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    no additional funding per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  The addition of federal funding had no effect on the amount
    of additional funding per poor student.  (To compare these amounts
    with those of other states, see table III.6 in app.  III.)

    State funding in New York reduced the local funding gap between the
    lowest and highest poverty groups from about 213 percent to about 44
    percent.  The addition of federal funding further reduced the funding
    gap between these groups to about 34 percent.  (To compare the total
    funding gap with those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.
    For the funding gap results using a regression analysis, see table
    V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In New York, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 72 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\100

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXXVII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXXVII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of New York districts.  (Fig.
    XXXVII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XXXVII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           693         179         219         284           1          10
    Total pupils        2,608,699     530,376     509,119     488,412     962,269     118,523
    Poverty rate             18.5         3.2         7.9        18.1        30.5        36.2
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $38.79      $47.58      $48.69      $44.33      $26.94      $34.35
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XXXVII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $4,473    $8,116    $5,757    $3,876    $2,784    $2,597      3.13        213
    State         3,320     2,779     3,872     4,841     2,595     4,986       .56         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $7,794   $10,895    $9,629    $8,717    $5,380    $7,583      1.44         44
    Federal\a       439       150       237       410       616       653       .23         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $8,233   $11,045    $9,866    $9,127    $5,996    $8,235      1.34         34
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXVII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       New York, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A New York education official reported that the state had targeted
    much more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in New York's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about New York appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \100 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  NORTH CAROLINA
    ===================================================== Appendix XXXVIII

                          Table XXXVIII.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: North
                              Carolina

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,780

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            30%
    State share                                            63%
    Federal share                                           7%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.53
    Federal funding weight                               $4.97
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.05
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 93%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       81%
    State + local funds                                    16%
    Federal + state + local funds                           7%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXVIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding
    (local, state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    North Carolina averaged $4,780.  The localities provided about 30
    percent of total funding for education; the state provided about 63
    percent; federal funds provided about 7 percent.

    North Carolina's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $.53 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $1.05 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    North Carolina's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 81 percent to about 16 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 7 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In North Carolina, districts with
    the highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise
    local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor
    students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made
    a tax effort that was 93 percent of that made in districts in the
    lowest poverty group.\101

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXXVIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXXVIII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of North Carolina districts.
    (Fig.  XXXVIII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                         Table XXXVIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           132          16          17          25          29          45
    Total pupils        1,082,899     219,473     211,671     226,692     214,098     210,965
    Poverty rate             17.1         8.9        12.6        15.0        20.1        29.2
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $18.67      $21.57      $16.19      $18.23      $17.21      $20.04
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                          Table XXXVIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,438    $1,982    $1,431    $1,540    $1,103    $1,098      1.81         81
    State         2,995     2,858     3,012     3,018     3,056     3,067       .93         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,433    $4,840    $4,442    $4,558    $4,159    $4,165      1.16         16
    Federal\a       347       205       289       314       401       537       .38         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,780    $5,045    $4,731    $4,873    $4,560    $4,702      1.07          7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXVIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       North Carolina, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A North Carolina education official reported that the state targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts as of school year 1996-97.
    More information on changes in North Carolina's school finance system
    made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states
    appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding
    between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional
    technical information about North Carolina appears in appendixes III
    and IV.

    Appendix XXXIX

    --------------------
    \101 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  NORTH DAKOTA
    ===================================================== Appendix XXXVIII

                           Table XXXIX.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: North
                               Dakota

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,467

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            48%
    State share                                            44%
    Federal share                                           8%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.78
    Federal funding weight                               $8.39
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $2.53
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                153%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of po students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                        2%
    State + local funds                                    -5%
    Federal + state + local funds                         -12%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XXXIX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in North
    Dakota averaged $4,467.  The localities provided about 48 percent of
    total funding for education; the state provided about 44 percent;
    federal funds provided about 8 percent.

    North Dakota's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $.78 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $2.53 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    North Dakota's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    more than eliminated the 2-percent local funding gap between the
    lowest and highest poverty groups.  Consequently, the lowest poverty
    group had about 5 percent less funding than the highest poverty
    group.  The lowest poverty group had about 12 percent less funding
    after the addition of federal funding.  (To compare the total funding
    gap with those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the
    funding gap results using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In North Dakota, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 153 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\102

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XXXIX.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XXXIX.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of North Dakota districts.
    (Fig.  XXXIX.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XXXIX.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           251          55          19          33          30         114
    Total pupils          117,927      27,977      20,104      22,680      23,976      23,190
    Poverty rate             16.4         8.5        11.3        13.5        17.5        31.9
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $36.99      $35.02      $30.57      $35.25      $34.86      $53.48
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XXXIX.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,157    $2,474    $1,991    $2,064    $1,925    $2,428      1.02          2
    State         1,957     1,991     2,030     1,903     1,879     2,187       .88         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,115    $4,392    $4,020    $3,967    $3,804    $4,615       .95         -5
    Federal\a       352       230       284       261       304       654       .35         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,467    $4,622    $4,305    $4,228    $4,108    $5,269       .88        -12
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XXXIX.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       North Dakota, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A North Dakota education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in North Dakota's school
    finance system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in
    other states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in
    federal funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about North Dakota appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \102 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  OHIO
    ========================================================== Appendix XL

                             Table XL.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: Ohio

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,984

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            55%
    State share                                            40%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $1.48
    Federal funding weight                               $5.66
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $2.19
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 98%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of po students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       96%
    State + local funds                                    27%
    Federal + state + local funds                          15%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XL.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Ohio
    averaged $4,984.  The localities provided about 55 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 40 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Ohio's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $1.48 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $2.19 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Ohio's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced the
    local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups from
    about 96 percent to about 27 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    15 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Ohio, districts with the highest
    proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local revenue
    than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 98 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\103

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XL.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XL.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Ohio districts.  (Fig.  XL.1 provides table
    information in graphic form.)

                                            Table XL.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           607         116         158         168         117          48
    Total pupils        1,774,710     355,898     353,986     353,515     380,108     331,203
    Poverty rate             16.9         3.4         7.8        13.3        24.5        36.2
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $33.60      $33.84      $33.46      $33.56      $33.83      $33.14
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                             Table XL.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,740    $3,968    $3,011    $2,454    $2,294    $2,025      1.96         96
    State         1,971     1,626     1,830     1,959     2,043     2,386       .68         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,711    $5,594    $4,840    $4,413    $4,336    $4,411      1.27         27
    Federal\a       273       103       156       198       318       551       .19         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,984    $5,697    $4,996    $4,610    $4,655    $4,962      1.15         15
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XL.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Ohio, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Ohio education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Ohio's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Ohio appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \103 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  OKLAHOMA
    ========================================================= Appendix XLI

                            Table XLI.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Oklahoma

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $3,929

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                          27.7%
    State share                                          65.5%
    Federal share                                         6.8%

    Targeting to poor students (added amount allocated per
    poor student for every
    dollar allocated each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.76
    Federal funding weight                               $3.96
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.09
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                112%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest an highest
    proportions of p students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       19%
    State + local funds                                    -2%
    Federal + state + local funds                          -8%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Oklahoma
    averaged $3,929.  The localities provided about 28 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 66 percent; federal
    funds provided about 7 percent.

    Oklahoma's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.76 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.09 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Oklahoma's targeting efforts and state share of total funding more
    than eliminated the 19-percent local funding gap between the lowest
    and highest poverty groups.  Consequently, the lowest poverty group
    had about 2 percent less funding than the highest poverty group.  The
    lowest poverty group had about 8 percent less funding after the
    addition of federal funding.  (To compare the total funding gap with
    those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap
    results using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Oklahoma, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 112 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\104

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XLI.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XLI.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Oklahoma districts.  (Fig.  XLI.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XLI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           565          78          89         139         100         159
    Total pupils          583,670     108,745     126,703     115,913     115,169     117,140
    Poverty rate             20.9         7.6        13.4        20.7        26.8        35.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $16.89      $15.75      $15.55      $19.13      $17.12      $17.58
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XLI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,087    $1,189    $1,092    $1,048    $1,158    $1,001      1.19         19
    State         2,575     2,415     2,543     2,827     2,496     2,681       .90         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,662    $3,604    $3,635    $3,875    $3,653    $3,682       .98         -2
    Federal\a       267       134       202       293       320       380       .35         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $3,929    $3,738    $3,837    $4,168    $3,973    $4,062       .92         -8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Oklahoma, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Oklahoma education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Oklahoma's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Oklahoma appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \104 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  OREGON
    ======================================================== Appendix XLII

                            Table XLII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                               Oregon

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,411

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            65%
    State share                                            29%
    Federal share                                           6%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stud for every
    dollar alloca each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $1.57
    Federal funding weight                               $4.29
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $2.32
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                119%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of poor students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       43%
    State + local funds                                    17%
    Federal + state + local funds                          12%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Oregon
    averaged $5,411.  The localities provided about 65 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 29 percent; federal
    funds provided about 6 percent.

    Oregon's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $1.57 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $2.32 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Oregon's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 43 percent to about 17 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    12 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Oregon, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 119 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\105

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XLII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XLII.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Oregon districts.  (Fig.  XLII.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XLII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           286          81          44          39          30          92
    Total pupils          497,341      91,986     101,606     105,703     109,339      88,707
    Poverty rate             15.2         6.2        11.3        15.2        18.6        24.6
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $40.89      $35.64      $40.71      $40.68      $46.14      $42.36
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XLII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,509    $4,121    $3,600    $3,028    $3,928    $2,891      1.43         43
    State         1,584     1,349     1,605     1,694     1,555     1,775       .76         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,093    $5,470    $5,205    $4,721    $5,483    $4,666      1.17         17
    Federal\a       319       185       289       341       385       396       .47         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,411    $5,654    $5,494    $5,062    $5,868    $5,062      1.12         12
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Oregon, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    An Oregon education official reported that the state had targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Oregon's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Oregon appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \105 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  PENNSYLVANIA
    ======================================================= Appendix XLIII

                           Table XLIII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                            Pennsylvania

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,709

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                          54.5%
    State share                                          41.0%
    Federal share                                         4.5%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stude for every
    dollar alloc for each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $1.31
    Federal funding weight                               $6.73
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.89
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 86%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest a highest
    proportions of students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      110%
    State + local funds                                    32%
    Federal + state + local funds                          20%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    Pennsylvania averaged $6,709.  The localities provided 54.5 percent
    of total funding for education; the state provided 41 percent;
    federal funds provided 4.5 percent.

    Pennsylvania's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $1.31 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $1.89 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    Pennsylvania's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 110 percent to about 32 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 20 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Pennsylvania, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 86 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\106

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XLIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XLIII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of Pennsylvania districts.
    (Fig.  XLIII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XLIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           500          83         110         143         133          31
    Total pupils        1,663,264     329,090     336,866     332,820     335,181     329,307
    Poverty rate             15.2         3.2         7.2        13.2        21.2        31.6
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $36.38      $38.03      $38.20      $36.90      $34.72      $32.55
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XLIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,656    $5,554    $4,331    $3,216    $2,649    $2,650      2.10        110
    State         2,753     2,056     2,512     2,942     3,178     3,097       .66         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $6,409    $7,610    $6,843    $6,158    $5,827    $5,746      1.32         32
    Federal\a       299        94       151       226       310       650       .14         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,709    $7,704    $6,994    $6,384    $6,137    $6,396      1.20         20
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Pennsylvania, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Pennsylvania education official reported that the state had
    targeted much more funding to high-poverty districts since school
    year 1991-92.  More information on changes in Pennsylvania's school
    finance system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in
    other states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in
    federal funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Pennsylvania appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \106 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  RHODE ISLAND
    ======================================================== Appendix XLIV

                            Table XLIV.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: Rhode
                               Island

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,244

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            58%
    State share                                            37%
    Federal share                                           4%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stude every
    dollar allocated each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.23
    Federal funding weight                               $3.92
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.42
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 84%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest an highest
    proportions of p students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       87%
    State + local funds                                    28%
    Federal + state + local funds                          21%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLIV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Rhode
    Island averaged $6,244.  The localities provided about 58 percent of
    total funding for education; the state provided about 37 percent;
    federal funds provided about 4 percent.

    Rhode Island's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $.23 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $.42 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    Rhode Island's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 87 percent to about 28 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 21 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Rhode Island, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 84 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\107

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XLIV.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XLIV.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Rhode Island districts.  (Fig.  XLIV.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XLIV.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            37          12           7           9           7           2
    Total pupils          141,364      29,885      29,395      24,169      33,501      24,414
    Poverty rate             12.8         4.1         5.9         8.0        14.6        33.8
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $33.69      $36.90      $36.32      $35.89      $28.20      $31.14
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XLIV.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,631    $4,423    $4,196    $4,363    $3,058    $2,365      1.87         87
    State         2,333     2,096     2,503     2,029     2,281     2,710       .77         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,964    $6,519    $6,698    $6,391    $5,339    $5,076      1.28         28
    Federal\a       279       171       218       212       330       448       .38         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,244    $6,690    $6,916    $6,603    $5,668    $5,524      1.21         21
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLIV.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Rhode Island, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Rhode Island education official reported that the state had
    targeted much more funding to high-poverty districts since school
    year 1991-92.  More information on changes in Rhode Island's school
    finance system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in
    other states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in
    federal funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Rhode Island appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \107 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  SOUTH CAROLINA
    ========================================================= Appendix XLV

                            Table XLV.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: South
                              Carolina

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,509

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                          43.7%
    State share                                          47.8%
    Federal share                                         8.5%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stude every
    dollar allocated f each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.21
    Federal funding weight                               $4.46
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.66
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                106%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest an highest
    proportions of p students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       52%
    State + local funds                                    17%
    Federal + state + local funds                           6%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLV.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in South
    Carolina averaged $4,509.  The localities provided about 44 percent
    of total funding for education; the state provided about 48 percent;
    federal funds provided about 9 percent.

    South Carolina's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $.21 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $.66 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    South Carolina's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 52 percent to about 17 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 6 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In South Carolina, districts with
    the highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise
    local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor
    students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made
    a tax effort that was 106 percent of that made in districts in the
    lowest poverty group.\108

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XLV.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XLV.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of South Carolina districts.  (Fig.  XLV.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XLV.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            91          14          15          14          13          35
    Total pupils          625,839     113,602     139,518     118,513     130,134     124,072
    Poverty rate             20.8         9.8        15.0        20.4        24.8        33.7
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $29.83      $32.26      $26.53      $27.52      $30.29      $34.35
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XLV.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,972    $2,344    $1,904    $1,881    $2,213    $1,544      1.52         52
    State         2,153     2,171     2,173     2,231     1,929     2,325       .93         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,125    $4,515    $4,077    $4,112    $4,142    $3,869      1.17         17
    Federal\a       383       215       299       367       448       574       .37         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,509    $4,730    $4,376    $4,479    $4,590    $4,443      1.06          6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLV.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       South Carolina, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A South Carolina education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in South Carolina's school
    finance system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in
    other states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in
    federal funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about South Carolina appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \108 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  SOUTH DAKOTA
    ======================================================== Appendix XLVI

                            Table XLVI.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: South
                               Dakota

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,217

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            66%
    State share                                            26%
    Federal share                                           8%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stude every
    dollar allocated f each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $1.30
    Federal funding weight                               $4.89
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $2.51
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                140%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest an highest
    proportions of p students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       28%
    State + local funds                                     9%
    Federal + state + local funds                           1%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLVI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in South
    Dakota averaged $4,217.  The localities provided about 66 percent of
    total funding for education; the state provided about 26 percent;
    federal funds provided about 8 percent.

    South Dakota's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $1.30 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $2.51 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    South Dakota's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 28 percent to about 9 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 1 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In South Dakota, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 140 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\109

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XLVI.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XLVI.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of South Dakota districts.  (Fig.  XLVI.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XLVI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           161          20          20          23          35          63
    Total pupils          124,665      26,217      23,732      22,067      28,359      24,290
    Poverty rate             18.2         8.2        12.2        15.0        18.0        38.2
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $48.07      $43.68      $43.75      $48.97      $48.41      $61.03
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XLVI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,773    $3,215    $2,833    $2,602    $2,767    $2,515      1.28         28
    State         1,109     1,051       995     1,097     1,059     1,396       .75         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,882    $4,266    $3,828    $3,699    $3,825    $3,911      1.09          9
    Federal\a       335       237       243       290       317       568       .42         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,217    $4,503    $4,071    $3,989    $4,142    $4,479      1.01          1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLVI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       South Dakota, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A South Dakota education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in South Dakota's school
    finance system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in
    other states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in
    federal funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about South Dakota appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \109 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  TENNESSEE
    ======================================================= Appendix XLVII

                           Table XLVII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                             Tennessee

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $3,699

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            48%
    State share                                            42%
    Federal share                                          10%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stud for every
    dollar allocat each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.31
    Federal funding weight                               $4.24
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.16
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                125%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest an highest
    proportions of p students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                        5%
    State + local funds                                     3%
    Federal + state + local funds                          -7%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLVII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Tennessee
    averaged $3,699.  The localities provided about 48 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 42 percent; federal
    funds provided about 10 percent.

    Tennessee's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.31 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.16 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Tennessee's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 5 percent to about 3 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding eliminated the funding gap between these groups,
    resulting in the lowest poverty group having about 7 percent less
    funding than the highest poverty group.  (To compare the total
    funding gap with those of other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.
    For the funding gap results using a regression analysis, see table
    V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Tennessee, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 125 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\110

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XLVII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XLVII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of Tennessee districts.  (Fig.
    XLVII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XLVII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           134          14          32          14          49          25
    Total pupils          830,038     167,155     162,620     170,812     167,164     162,287
    Poverty rate             20.4         8.8        16.4        19.1        24.0        34.2
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $24.90      $25.43      $22.68      $23.43      $21.99      $31.86
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XLVII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,768    $1,953    $1,539    $2,092    $1,343     1,865      1.05          5
    State         1,566     1,532     1,639     1,495     1,665     1,523      1.01         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,334    $3,484    $3,178    $3,587    $3,008    $3,388      1.03          3
    Federal\a       365       197       314       322       439       551       .36         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $3,699    $3,681    $3,491    $3,909    $3,446    $3,939       .93         -7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLVII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Tennessee, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Tennessee education official reported that the state had targeted
    much more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Tennessee's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Tennessee appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \110 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  TEXAS
    ====================================================== Appendix XLVIII

                           Table XLVIII.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: Texas

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $4,946

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            49%
    State share                                            44%
    Federal share                                           7%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stude every
    dollar allocated each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.39
    Federal funding weight                               $3.71
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.58
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                115%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of po students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      140%
    State + local funds                                    11%
    Federal + state + local funds                           1%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLVIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding
    (local, state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in
    Texas averaged $4,946.  The localities provided about 49 percent of
    total funding for education; the state provided about 44 percent;
    federal funds provided about 7 percent.

    Texas' state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.39 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.58 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.).

    Texas' targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced the
    local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups from
    about 140 percent to about 11 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    1 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Texas, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 115 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\111

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table
    XLVIII.2 presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five
    groups of districts with increasing proportions of poor students.
    Table XLVIII.3 presents data on how local, state, and federal funds
    were distributed among the five groups of Texas districts.  (Fig.
    XLVIII.1 provides table information in graphic form.)

                                          Table XLVIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts         1,046         167         244         227         164         244
    Total pupils        3,462,964     700,090     685,345     704,951     675,375     697,203
    Poverty rate             24.4         7.0        15.2        23.2        31.1        45.6
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $38.40      $36.57      $37.95      $39.81      $37.96      $42.07
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                           Table XLVIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $2,433    $3,231    $2,564    $2,739    $2,476    $1,348      2.40        140
    State         2,180     1,706     2,200     2,106     1,830     3,111       .55         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,613    $4,937    $4,764    $4,845    $4,306    $4,459      1.11         11
    Federal\a       334       132       224       332       403       561       .24         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $4,946    $5,069    $4,988    $5,177    $4,709    $5,020      1.01          1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLVIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Texas, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Texas education official reported that the state had not targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Texas' school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Texas appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \111 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  UTAH
    ======================================================== Appendix XLIX

                            Table XLIX.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: Utah

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $3,408

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            38%
    State share                                            56%
    Federal share                                           6%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stud for every
    dollar allocat each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                  $.02
    Federal funding weight                               $6.52
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.59
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                123%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest an highest
    proportions of p students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                      -29%
    State + local funds                                    -8%
    Federal + state + local funds                         -11%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table XLIX.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Utah
    averaged $3,408.  The localities provided about 38 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 56 percent; federal
    funds provided about 6 percent.

    Utah's state funding had the effect of providing districts with an
    additional $.02 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $.59 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    The lowest poverty group in Utah had about 29 percent less local
    funding than the highest poverty group.  State funding reduced this
    funding gap to about 8 percent.  The lowest poverty group had about
    11 percent less funding after the addition of federal funding.  (To
    compare the total funding gap with those of other states, see table
    V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using a regression
    analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Utah, districts with the highest
    proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local revenue
    than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 123 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\112

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table XLIX.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table XLIX.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Utah districts.  (Fig.  XLIX.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table XLIX.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            40           3           4           7          12          14
    Total pupils          456,552      95,553      82,690     134,437      62,211      81,661
    Poverty rate             12.1         7.1         8.2        11.1        15.0        21.2
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $30.86      $28.05      $26.23      $27.71      $43.85      $34.57
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table XLIX.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,284    $1,229    $1,019    $1,118    $1,406    $1,740       .71        -29
    State         1,911     1,944     2,152     1,870     1,982     1,694      1.15         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $3,195    $3,174    $3,171    $2,988    $3,388    $3,434       .92         -8
    Federal\a       212       157       193       183       228       318       .49         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $3,408    $3,331    $3,365    $3,171     3,616    $3,752       .89        -11
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure XLIX.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Utah, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Utah education official reported that the state had targeted more
    funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.  More
    information on changes in Utah's school finance system made between
    1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears in table
    LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between 1991-92 and
    1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical information
    about Utah appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \112 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  VIRGINIA
    =========================================================== Appendix L

                             Table L.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                              Virginia

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,021

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            61%
    State share                                            34%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added am allocated per poor
    stude every
    dollar allocated f each student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                  $.93
    Federal funding weight                               $5.27
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.29
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                 91%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of po students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       98%
    State + local funds                                    30%
    Federal + state + local funds                          20%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table L.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Virginia
    averaged $5,021.  The localities provided about 61 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 34 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Virginia's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.93 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.29 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Virginia's targeting efforts and state share of total funding reduced
    the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty groups
    from about 98 percent to about 30 percent.  The addition of federal
    funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups to about
    20 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of other
    states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results using
    a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Virginia, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made less effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 91 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\113

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table L.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table L.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Virginia districts.  (Fig.  L.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                            Table L.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           133           6          19          27          52          29
    Total pupils        1,017,948     196,113     185,453     230,335     207,058     198,989
    Poverty rate             13.4         4.1         5.9         9.8        18.0        28.7
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $32.17      $36.94      $32.62      $28.33      $28.06      $33.60
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                             Table L.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,052    $4,601    $3,073    $2,925    $2,124    $2,322      1.98         98
    State         1,695     1,048     1,690     1,736     2,111     2,018      0.52         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,748    $5,649    $4,764    $4,661    $4,236    $4,340      1.30         30
    Federal\a       274       134       178       231       357       472      0.28         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,021    $5,782    $4,942    $4,892    $4,593    $4,812      1.20         20
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure L.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Virginia, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Virginia education official reported that the state had targeted
    much more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in Virginia's school finance
    system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other
    states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal
    funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about Virginia appears in appendixes
    III and IV.

    --------------------
    \113 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  WASHINGTON
    ========================================================== Appendix LI

                             Table LI.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                             Washington

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,604

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            24%
    State share                                            71%
    Federal share                                           5%

    Targeting to poor students (added amo allocated per poor
    studen every
    dollar allocated f student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.70
    Federal funding weight                               $6.28
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.11
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                123%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of po students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       46%
    State + local funds                                     7%
    Federal + state + local funds                           1%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table LI.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Washington
    averaged $5,604.  The localities provided about 24 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 71 percent; federal
    funds provided about 5 percent.

    Washington's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $.70 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.11 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Washington's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 46 percent to about 7 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 1 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Washington, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 123 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\114

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table LI.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table LI.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Washington districts.  (Fig.  LI.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                            Table LI.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           290          40          37          60          50         103
    Total pupils          860,198     162,198     176,803     178,558     182,436     160,203
    Poverty rate             14.3         5.8         9.0        12.5        18.2        26.7
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $16.08      $16.22      $16.66      $17.02      $12.93      $19.97
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                             Table LI.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,346    $1,656    $1,314    $1,306    $1,307    $1,135      1.46         46
    State         3,988     3,916     4,010     4,107     4,002     4,082       .96         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,334    $5,572    $5,324    $5,413    $5,309    $5,217      1.07          7
    Federal\a       270       144       170       250       334       464       .31         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,604    $5,716    $5,494    $5,662    $5,643    $5,681      1.01          1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure LI.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Washington, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Washington education official reported that the state had targeted
    more funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Washington's school finance system
    made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states
    appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding
    between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional
    technical information about Washington appears in appendixes III and
    IV.

    --------------------
    \114 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  WEST VIRGINIA
    ========================================================= Appendix LII

                            Table LII.1

              Summary Data, School Year 1991-92: West
                              Virginia

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $5,332

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            25%
    State share                                            67%
    Federal share                                           8%

    Targeting to poor students (added amo allocated per poor
    studen every
    dollar allocated f student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $0.09
    Federal funding weight                               $2.59
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $0.27
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                114%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of po students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       68%
    State + local funds                                    13%
    Federal + state + local funds                           9%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table LII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in West
    Virginia averaged $5,332.  The localities provided about 25 percent
    of total funding for education; the state provided about 67 percent;
    federal funds provided about 8 percent.

    West Virginia's state funding had the effect of providing districts
    with an additional $.09 per poor student for every $1 provided to
    each student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding,
    the combined effect provided an additional $.27 per poor student.
    (To compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6
    in app.  III.)

    West Virginia's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 68 percent to about 13 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 9 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In West Virginia, districts with
    the highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise
    local revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor
    students.  Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made
    a tax effort that was 114 percent of that made in districts in the
    lowest poverty group.\115

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table LII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table LII.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of West Virginia districts.  (Fig.  LII.1
    provides table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table LII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts            55          11           7          12          11          14
    Total pupils          320,249      67,857      62,346      63,887      60,497      65,662
    Poverty rate             25.6        16.4        20.9        24.2        28.4        38.3
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $22.96      $22.63      $21.92      $24.36      $20.83      $25.86
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table LII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $1,353    $1,639    $1,605    $1,487    $1,073      $975      1.68         68
    State         3,574     3,491     3,472     3,668     3,716     3,550       .98         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $4,927    $5,130    $5,077    $5,155    $4,789    $4,525      1.13         13
    Federal\a       405       322       361       407       439       494       .65         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $5,332    $5,452    $5,438    $5,562    $5,228    $5,020      1.09          9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure LII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       West Virginia, School Year
       1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A West Virginia education official reported that the state had not
    targeted more funding to high-poverty districts since school year
    1991-92.  More information on changes in West Virginia's school
    finance system made between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in
    other states appears in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in
    federal funding between 1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.
    Additional technical information about West Virginia appears in
    appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \115 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    STATE PROFILE:  WISCONSIN
    ======================================================== Appendix LIII

                            Table LIII.1

                 Summary Data, School Year 1991-92:
                             Wisconsin

    --------------------------------------------  ------------
    Average total funding per weighted pupil            $6,124

    Sources of total funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local share                                            52%
    State share                                            44%
    Federal share                                           4%

    Targeting to poor students (added amo allocated per poor
    studen every
    dollar allocated f student)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    State funding weight                                 $1.20
    Federal funding weight                               $5.14
    Total funding weight (effect of combined             $1.55
     state and federal funding)
    Local tax effort of districts with the                102%
     highest poverty rates compared with
     districts with the lowest poverty rates

    Funding gap between districts with lowest and highest
    proportions of po students
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Local funds only                                       75%
    State + local funds                                    17%
    Federal + state + local funds                          11%
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As table LIII.1 shows, in school year 1991-92, total funding (local,
    state, and federal funding combined) per weighted pupil in Wisconsin
    averaged $6,124.  The localities provided about 52 percent of total
    funding for education; the state provided about 44 percent; federal
    funds provided about 4 percent.

    Wisconsin's state funding had the effect of providing districts with
    an additional $1.20 per poor student for every $1 provided to each
    student.  When federal funding was added to the state funding, the
    combined effect provided an additional $1.55 per poor student.  (To
    compare these amounts with those of other states, see table III.6 in
    app.  III.)

    Wisconsin's targeting efforts and state share of total funding
    reduced the local funding gap between the lowest and highest poverty
    groups from about 75 percent to about 17 percent.  The addition of
    federal funding further reduced the funding gap between these groups
    to about 11 percent.  (To compare the total funding gap with those of
    other states, see table V.2 in app.  V.  For the funding gap results
    using a regression analysis, see table V.1.)

    The size of the local funding gap is partly determined by differences
    in districts' local tax efforts.  In Wisconsin, districts with the
    highest proportions of poor students made more effort to raise local
    revenue than districts with the lowest proportions of poor students.
    Specifically, districts in the highest poverty group made a tax
    effort that was 102 percent of that made in districts in the lowest
    poverty group.\116

    To put the state's school finance system in perspective, table LIII.2
    presents demographic data for school year 1991-92 for five groups of
    districts with increasing proportions of poor students.  Table LIII.3
    presents data on how local, state, and federal funds were distributed
    among the five groups of Wisconsin districts.  (Fig.  LIII.1 provides
    table information in graphic form.)

                                           Table LIII.2

                             Demographic Information for Districts of
                             Increasing Proportions of Poor Students,
                                       School Year 1991-92

                                     Lowest                                         Highest
                                    poverty                                         poverty
                                   ----------                                      ----------
                            State     Group 1     Group 2     Group 3     Group 4     Group 5
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total districts           426          94          93          88          79          72
    Total pupils          813,614     163,176     163,100     149,730     174,563     163,045
    Poverty rate             14.1         3.4         7.7        11.7        15.8        31.4
     (percent)
    Tax effort\a           $38.08      $36.56      $39.68      $38.29      $38.87      $37.38
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Local funding raised for every $1,000 of district income.

                                            Table LIII.3

                                Effects of Local, State, and Federal
                              Efforts on Average Funding per Weighted
                                Pupil for Districts With Increasing
                                Proportions of Poor Students, School
                                            Year 1991-92

                                 Mean funding per weighted pupil
                         ------------------------------------------------
                          Lowest                                 Highest
                         poverty                                 poverty
                         --------                                --------
                                                                                       Percent
                                                                            Group 1  differenc
                                                                            funding   e (group
                                                                           compared          1
                                                                               with   compared
    Funding                                                                 group 5       with
    source        State   Group 1   Group 2   Group 3   Group 4   Group 5   funding   group 5)
    ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Local\a      $3,168    $4,118    $3,374    $3,032    $3,093    $2,353      1.75         75
    State         2,707     2,301     2,632     2,789     2,721     3,110       .74         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Subtotal     $5,876    $6,419    $6,006    $5,821    $5,813    $5,463      1.17         17
    Federal\a       248       135       172       214       261       426       .32         \b
    ==========================================================================================
    Total        $6,124    $6,554    $6,178    $6,035    $6,074    $5,889      1.11         11
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    \a Federal impact aid is considered part of local funding.

    \b Not applicable to our analysis.

       Figure LIII.1:  Funding
       Distribution (in Dollars) in
       Wisconsin, School Year 1991-92

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Funding has been adjusted for statewide differences in
    geographic and student need-related costs.

    A Wisconsin education official reported that the state had targeted
    less funding to high-poverty districts since school year 1991-92.
    More information on changes in Wisconsin's school finance system made
    between 1991-92 and 1995-96 and such changes in other states appears
    in table LIV.1.  Information on changes in federal funding between
    1991-92 and 1994-95 appears in table LV.1.  Additional technical
    information about Wisconsin appears in appendixes III and IV.

    --------------------
    \116 The difference in tax efforts can also be analyzed by examining
    the elasticity of tax effort to district poverty rates.  For these
    results and those of other states, see table V.3 in app.  V.

    CHANGES IN STATE SCHOOL FINANCE
    SYSTEMS
    ========================================================= Appendix LIV

    In this report, we relied on funding data from the 1991-92 school
    year.  However, many states have subsequently changed their school
    finance systems in response to legal challenges or to equity
    concerns.  We telephoned officials in the 47 states to determine what
    changes had taken place in the school finance systems from school
    years 1991-92 through 1995-96.  We specifically asked about changes
    in targeting that would affect districts with high proportions of
    poor students and changes in a state's share of education
    funding.\117 These two factors affect the size of the funding gap
    between low- and high-poverty districts--in general, the greater the
    targeting to high-poverty districts or the greater the state share,
    or both, the lower the funding gap.  We did not verify the state
    officials' statements.

    Relatively few states reported increased targeting to high-poverty
    districts.  Education officials in 19 states reported not targeting
    high-poverty districts at all, 10 states reported no change in
    targeting to high-poverty districts, and 2 states reported changes
    that would result in high-poverty districts receiving less state
    funding.  The remaining 16 states reported making changes that would
    provide more funds to high-poverty districts.  Fewer states had
    increased the state share of total funding significantly.  Officials
    in 36 states reported that their state's share had a net increase or
    decrease of 5 percentage points or less, and 3 states reported a
    decrease of 6 percentage points or more.  Officials in the remaining
    eight states reported an increase in the state share of 6 percentage
    points or more.  Table LIV.1 summarizes our findings of the changes
    states have made.

                                           Table LIV.1

                                Summary of Changes to State School
                             Finance Systems, School Years 1991-92 to
                                             1995-96

                                     1995-96 targeting to high-poverty districts
                                                compared with 1991-92
                                    ---------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Did not
                                                                                   specifical
                                                                                    ly target
                                                                                        high-
                         Change in                                                    poverty
                             state                                                  districts
                             share                                                  in either
                        (percentag                                                     school
    State                e points)  Much more        More        Same        Less        year
    ------------------  ----------  ---------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Alabama                    3.2                                                          X
    Alaska                    -0.8                                                          X
    Arizona                    2.0                                  X
    Arkansas                   6.0                                                          X
    California\a              -9.7                                  X
    Colorado                  11.2          X
    Connecticut\b             -1.4                                  X
    Delaware                  -1.6                                                          X
    Florida                   -0.3                                                          X
    Georgia                    2.2                                                          X
    Idaho\b                    0.4                                                          X
    Illinois\a                -1.1                                  X
    Indiana\b                  2.2                      X
    Iowa                       0.8                                                          X
    Kansas                    17.6                      X
    Kentucky                   2.4                                  X
    Louisiana                 -6.0                      X
    Maine                     -5.0                                              X
    Maryland                  -1.1                      X
    Massachusetts              8.0          X
    Michigan\b                44.9                      X
    Minnesota                  0.4                                  X
    Mississippi                2.2                                                          X
    Missouri                  -1.3          X
    Montana                   -4.9                                                          X
    Nebraska                   0.2                                                          X
    Nevada                    -6.9                                                          X
    New Hampshire             -1.0                                                          X
    New Jersey                -5.0                                  X
    New Mexico                 0.0                                                          X
    New York                  -3.2          X
    North Carolina            -1.0                                                          X
    North Dakota              -4.0                                                          X
    Ohio\b                    -0.4                                  X
    Oklahoma\b                 3.0                                  X
    Oregon                    30.0                      X
    Pennsylvania              -1.1          X
    Rhode Island               0.8          X
    South Carolina            -1.7                                                          X
    South Dakota              -0.4                                                          X
    Tennessee                 10.0          X
    Texas                      1.1                                  X
    Utah                      24.0                      X
    Virginia\b                 2.1          X
    Washington                -2.7                      X
    West Virginia             -4.0                                                          X
    Wisconsin                  3.7                                              X
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Change as of school year 1993-94.

    \b Change as of school year 1994-95.

    --------------------
    \117 Some states lacked school year 1995-96 data; seven states
    reported changes as of school year 1994-95; and two states reported
    changes as of school year 1993-94.  Changes in the state share were
    based on local and state shares only (that is, the federal share of
    funding was not considered).  Because not all state officials knew
    the local contribution for capital expenditures and debt service, we
    asked state officials to estimate their state's share of funding
    exclusive of these categories.

    CHANGES IN MAJOR FEDERAL EDUCATION
    PROGRAMS
    ========================================================== Appendix LV

    In this report, we relied on state, local, and federal funding data
    from the 1991-92 school year.  Federal regulations or legislation
    since 1991-92, however, may have changed targeting to districts.  We
    telephoned officials in the Departments of Education, Agriculture,
    Health and Human Services, and the Interior and reviewed relevant
    documents to determine what regulatory or legislative changes, if
    any, to the major federally funded elementary and secondary schools
    programs may have resulted in more or less federal funds being
    targeted to poor students.

    The federal government targeted more funding to poor students in the
    1995-96 school year than in the 1991-92 school year, according to
    federal officials, due to changes in title I legislation and
    regulations.  Title I, the largest federal education program,
    provides funding for disadvantaged students.  Changes effective as of
    July 1995 were expected to provide more title I funding to
    high-poverty districts through increased targeting.  In addition,
    other federal education programs allocate funds on the basis of title
    I formulas.  For example, vocational education grants are partially
    based on title I funding formulas.  Consequently, vocational
    education funding has also increased in high-poverty districts.
    Federal government programs supporting children with disabilities
    under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act made changes in
    1997 that are expected to result in targeting more funding to poor
    students.

    Funding patterns remained relatively unchanged in many other federal
    programs.  Federal officials for the Head Start, bilingual education,
    Indian education, and child nutrition programs cited no regulatory or
    legislative changes since 1991-92 that would affect targeting to poor
    students.

    Table LV.I summarizes the federal funding provided to the states in
    school years 1991-92 and 1994-95.  These figures include impact aid
    as part of the totals (we excluded federal impact aid in our analysis
    of federal targeting).  The federal percentages in the table are
    based on total funding amounts from public sources (private funding
    is excluded from total funding).

                                            Table LV.1

                              Summary of Federal Funding to States,
                                 School Years 1991-92 and 1994-95

                              School year 1991-92                 School year 1994-95
                       ----------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                            Total                               Total
                          federal                             federal
                          funding   Per pupil  Percentage     funding   Per pupil  Percentage
                       (thousands     federal    of total  (thousands     federal    of total
    State                       )     funding     funding           )     funding     funding
    -----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Alabama              $322,576        $447        12.4    $343,927        $467         9.7
    Alaska                128,612       1,084        11.7     129,911       1,022        10.8
    Arizona               284,615         433         9.0     354,242         480         9.4
    Arkansas              197,915         451        11.2     199,163         445         9.2
    California          2,027,474         397         7.6   2,751,519         509         9.5
    Colorado              152,090         255         5.1     193,865         303         5.3
    Connecticut           126,225         262         3.3     177,446         350         4.0
    Delaware               46,144         452         7.7      53,885         504         7.2
    Florida               788,420         408         7.6     971,277         461         7.6
    Georgia               409,741         348         7.9     512,456         403         7.4
    Idaho                  69,859         310         8.3      84,012         349         7.7
    Illinois              680,351         368         7.0     780,212         407         6.5
    Indiana               272,355         285         5.5     306,971         317         4.8
    Iowa                  132,718         270         5.7     151,225         303         5.2
    Kansas                123,564         277         5.6     152,757         331         5.3
    Kentucky              296,573         459        10.2     301,243         458         9.3
    Louisiana             363,958         458        11.1     458,344         574        11.9
    Maine                  73,876         341         5.9      79,403         373         5.7
    Maryland              238,573         324         5.3     279,464         353         5.0
    Massachusetts         296,702         351         5.4     352,760         395         5.4
    Michigan              599,076         376         6.3     734,290         455         6.2
    Minnesota             200,853         260         4.6     247,964         302         4.4
    Mississippi           289,302         574        17.7     310,249         613        14.8
    Missouri              258,032         306         6.6     317,002         361         6.5
    Montana                72,483         465         9.2      91,912         559        10.0
    Nebraska               93,705         335         6.8     104,608         364         5.8
    Nevada                 46,957         222         4.3      67,369         269         4.9
    New Hampshire          31,098         176         3.1      35,169         186         3.1
    New Jersey            436,024         393         4.2     383,016         326         3.3
    New Mexico            169,616         550        12.7     199,231         609        11.8
    New York            1,210,481         458         5.7   1,196,994         433         4.8
    North Carolina        364,253         332         7.4     443,701         384         7.5
    North Dakota           59,909         506        11.8      73,400         615        12.4
    Ohio                  571,416         320         6.1     714,840         394         6.5
    Oklahoma              117,060         199         4.8     260,760         428         9.4
    Oregon                183,784         369         6.6     224,139         429         6.8
    Pennsylvania          664,767         393         5.9     746,601         423         5.6
    Rhode Island           53,653         377         6.1      59,458         403         5.5
    South Carolina        262,740         419         9.4     299,232         461         8.7
    South Dakota           61,986         471        11.5      69,162         482        10.0
    Tennessee             324,252         389        11.4     348,729         396         8.9
    Texas               1,120,400         323         6.8   1,511,000         411         7.7
    Utah                  106,609         232         6.9     133,543         281         6.0
    Virginia              322,156         317         6.0     368,102         347         5.7
    Washington            288,382         332         5.8     357,615         381         6.9
    West Virginia         129,763         405         7.7     156,555         504         8.1
    Wisconsin             216,430         266         4.4     262,315         305         4.4
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source:  U.S.  Department of Education National Center for Education
    Statistics.

    GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    ========================================================= Appendix LVI

    GAO CONTACTS

    Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209
    Peter J.  Bylsma, Evaluator-in-Charge, (206) 287-4881

    STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
    important contributions to this report:  Jerry Fastrup (202-512-7211)
    conceived the model for determining the poor student cost weights and
    helped write the report; Barbara A.  Billinghurst (206-287-4867)
    helped develop and apply the model and write the report; Nancy
    Purvine and Virginia Vanderlinde contacted state officials about
    changes in funding patterns; and Alicia Moos researched changes in
    federal funding patterns.

    *** End of document. ***