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. ***