- Chapters
- Chapter 1: Fiscal Year 2015 Final Allocations for Title I
- Chapter 2: Title I Allocations by Locale and State
- Chapter 3: Total Title I Allocations—Formula Analyses
- Chapter 4: Basic Grants—Formula Analyses
- Chapter 5: Concentration Grants—Formula Analyses
- Chapter 6: Targeted Grants—Formula Analyses
- Chapter 7: Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG)—Formula Analyses
- Bibliography
- Appendix A
- Appendix B
- Appendix C
Chapter 3: Total Title I Allocations—Formula Analyses
This chapter includes analyses of the total fiscal year 2015 (FY 15) Title I allocations per formula-eligible child across all four of the grants by comparing the final allocations overall to hypothetical allocations that were computed with the removal of single or multiple provisions from the formulas. Similar analyses of each of the Title I grant programs are presented in subsequent chapters. Some of the provisions affect all four of the Title I grants, while some only affect individual grants. For example, the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE), state minimum, and hold harmless provisions affect all four grants. The Concentration Grant formula includes two allocation eligibility requirements that are different from the other Title I grant requirements. There are two types of formula-eligible child weighting provisions that affect only Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). The EFIG formula has two additional provisions that are not included in the other Title I grant formulas: the state effort provision (the measure of state effort to provide financial support compared with its relative wealth) and the state equity provision (the degree to which education expenditures within a state are equalized).
The average total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was $1,227 in FY 15 (all allocations herein are averages) (table 3.A; figure 3.1). This allocation does not change after removing single or multiple provisions from the formulas because the total amount of allocations and the number of formula-eligible children (the numerator and denominator) do not change for the U.S. total. There are differences in the Title I allocations by state, poverty quarter, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) geographic locale, poverty and population size quarter, and population size after removing single or multiple provisions from the formulas. The allocations are also adjusted to reflect local variations in purchasing power (using the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index), and these adjusted allocations are compared with the unadjusted allocations (in current dollars).
Highlights
- The total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $984 in Idaho to $2,590 in Vermont, a difference of $1,606 (table 3.A). The difference in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations remained above $1,500, unless the state minimum provision was removed from the formulas. The smallest difference in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations ($310) resulted from the removal of the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE), state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions in combination.
- Large cities had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for most alternatives involving the removal of single or multiple provisions (table 3.B). For example, when the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed in combination, large cities ($1,319) had the highest Title I allocation per formula-eligible child and remote rural areas ($1,292) had the second-highest allocation; small suburban areas had the lowest allocation ($1,122) (figure 3.14).
- For both the final allocations and each of the formula alternatives that were analyzed, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child and the lowest poverty quarter had the lowest allocations (table 3.B). For example, when the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed in combination, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was $1,395 for the highest poverty quarter, compared with $921 for the lowest poverty quarter (figure 3.14).
- Compared with districts of other sizes in other poverty quarters, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for both the final allocations and for most of the alternatives that were examined (table 3.B). The second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter had the lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child in most of the alternatives that were examined. For example, when the SPPE provision was removed from the formulas, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,541) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $829 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,421 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter.
- For most of the alternatives, the smallest and largest districts had the highest total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child, while districts with midsize populations generally had the lowest allocations (table 3.B). Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,442) was higher than for districts of other population sizes (figure 3.5). The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,323), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,108).
Formula Alternatives
In this chapter, a larger range of formula alternatives are examined, compared with subsequent chapters that focus on individual grant allocations: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). Some allocation provisions affect each of the grant programs, such as the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE), state minimum, and hold harmless provisions, while other provisions apply only to specific grants (see Introduction, Methodology for Allocating Federal Title I Funds). The formulas are analyzed by systematically showing the allocation per formula-eligible child after excluding single and multiple provisions from the formulas. These alternatives provide a perspective on the relative impact of each of the provisions on the distribution of the funds. An alternative using only the formula-eligibility criteria was also presented to provide a baseline to compare to the allocations with provisions removed. The allocation based only on the formula-eligibility criteria focuses on just the counts of children and the weighting provisions and does not take into consideration other formula provisions, such as the SPPE, state minimum, and hold harmless provisions.
When individual provisions were excluded from the formulas, the individual grants were affected in different ways, but there were some general patterns. When the SPPE provision was removed from the formulas, each state was treated the same in expenditures per student, and there were no minimum and maximum thresholds. In general, removal of the SPPE provision meant that states with lower expenditures per student received higher allocations per formula-eligible child, while states with higher expenditures per student received lower allocations. Excluding the state minimum provision meant that some small population states had lower allocations since there was no lower bound on funding levels. Removal of the hold harmless provision allowed current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocations. Since the underlying parameters for the individual grants were different, the impact on the total Title I allocation did not always follow these expected patterns.
It is important to note that unless a formula provision is removed in conjunction with the hold harmless provision, the long-term impact of removing the other provision may not be fully reflected in the resulting allocation. So, when a provision such as the state minimum is removed from the formula, the school districts in the state are limited to a reduction of no more than 15 percent per year. The hold harmless provision moderates the long-term impact of removing the state minimum provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions are fully met for a district. In FY 15, the national Title I allocation was the same across all alternatives. Since the allocation was based on a fixed appropriation amount, increases or decreases for some districts had to be matched by increases or decreases for others. For example, under the hold harmless provision, maintaining the hold harmless amounts for some districts meant that some other districts with increases in formula-eligible children did not receive additional funding.
The Concentration Grant formula includes two allocation eligibility criteria that are different from the other Title I grant provisions. Rather than requiring 5 percent or more (as is the case for Targeted Grants and EFIG) or 2 percent or more (as is the case for Basic Grants) of the 5- to 17-year-old population to be formula eligible, Concentration Grants require more than 15 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old population or at least 6,500 children to be formula eligible in order to receive an allocation. If the provision that provides eligibility if the percentage of formula-eligible children exceeds 15 percent of total 5- to 17-year-old population (herein referred to as the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision) is met, Concentration Grant allocations have no minimum number of students required to receive an allocation, while the other Title I grant programs also require a minimum number of students (10) in order to receive an allocation. These two eligibility criteria, which are specific to Concentration Grants, are examined in the alternatives presented in this chapter. In FY 15, removal of the provision that provides eligibility if the number of formula-eligible children exceeds 6,500 (herein referred to as the 6,500 formula eligible children provision) reduced the allocations for large districts with relatively low poverty levels (and slightly increased allocations for districts with higher poverty levels). Removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision results in decreased allocations for smaller high-poverty districts but increased allocations for large districts that benefited from the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision. Removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision would result in only districts with 6,500 or more formula-eligible children receiving a full allocation; smaller districts, even those with high levels of poverty, would receive only a hold harmless allocation. Since the Title I funding level is a fixed sum, increases for some districts mean that amounts for others must be reduced.
The number weighting and percentage weighting provisions are unique to Targeted Grants and EFIG. When the number weighting provision is removed, districts only receive additional funding from high percentages of formula-eligible children, which favors districts in the highest poverty quarter regardless of size. When the percentage of formula-eligible children provision is removed, the additional funding allotments are based only on the actual number of formula-eligible children, which favors larger districts.
EFIG funds are distributed to states based on two unique variables that are not part of the formulas for the other three grants: the state effort provision (the measure of state effort to provide financial support compared with its relative wealth) and the state equity provision (the degree to which education expenditures within a state are equalized) (see Introduction, Methodology for Allocating Federal Title I Funds). In FY 15, when the state effort provision was removed, states no longer benefited or were penalized for spending relatively high or low percentages of their per capita income on education. Removing the state equity provision benefited states with larger variations in spending within the state. Unlike the other three types of Title I grants, EFIG are first computed at the state level and then distributed to districts within each state. The other district-level calculations, such as the hold harmless provision, only pertain to districts within a state, since the overall state amount is fixed. EFIG allocations are made to states based on state total eligibility (unweighted) and SPPE. EFIG provide funds to districts according to number weighting and percentage weighting provisions that are the same as those for Targeted Grants. The hold harmless and weighting provisions are applied only at the district level. Due to the nature of the state-level allocations in EFIG, hold harmless amounts could not be maintained for all districts in some states when certain provisions were removed from the formulas.
Five combinations of formula exclusions are analyzed in this chapter; each combination includes the removal of the hold harmless provision. This provides an example of the immediate and long-term impact of removing other provisions. One combination looks at removal of the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions. The second combination looks at removal of the hold harmless and state equity provisions. The third combination looks at removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions. The fourth combination looks at removal of the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions. The fifth combination looks at removal of the state minimum and hold harmless provisions. These combinations are only examples of different provision removals to provide a general perspective of the sensitivity of the funding distributions after accounting for various formula provisions.
Formula-Eligibility Criteria Only
When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the allocation range across states was smaller than the range when most provisions were removed, whether individually or in combination. For Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG), the number weighting and percentage weighting provisions were retained. These provisions contributed to differences across school district characteristics, such as locale, poverty quarter, and population size, which were all larger than those for the final allocations.
When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered (in conjunction with weighting provisions), the range in the state-level total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was narrower than the range for the final allocations. When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the allocations ranged from $1,033 in North Dakota and $1,036 in Wyoming to $1,338 in the District of Columbia and $1,368 in Nevada (table 3.A), a difference between the lowest and the highest of $335 or 32 percent (the range for the final allocations was $1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the largest decreases were in Vermont (-$1,535) and Wyoming (-$1,543); the largest increases were in Florida (+$213) and Nevada (+$226). Overall, 28 states and the District of Columbia had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 22 states and Puerto Rico had increases.
In contrast to the relatively small range in the total Title I allocations across the states, there were relatively wide ranges for some district characteristics. For example, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered (in conjunction with the weighting provisions), the range across the locales was wider than the range for the final allocations. Large cities had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,513) (table 3.B; figure 3.1). The allocations for the other locales ranged from $999 for fringe towns to $1,315 for midsize cities. Compared with the final allocations, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, midsize cities had the largest increase in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child (+$92), and large cities had the second-largest increase (+$47). The locales with the largest decreases were remote towns (-$114) and remote rural areas (-$311).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
2 Only the eligibility criteria for each of the four Title I, Part A grant formulas are included. For Basic Grants, funds are provided to districts in which the number of formula-eligible children is at least 10 and at least 2 percent of the district’s 5- to 17-year-old population. Concentration Grants are provided to districts in which the number of formula-eligible children is at least 6,500 or 15 percent of the district’s 5- to 17-year-old population. Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants are provided to districts in which the number of formula-eligible children (without the application of the formula weights) is at least 10 and at least 5 percent of the district’s 5- to 17-year-old population.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered (in conjunction with the weighting provisions), the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,333). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($938) and second-lowest for the second-lowest poverty quarter ($1,123). Compared with the final allocations, when using only the formula-eligibility criteria and weighting provisions, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for the second-highest poverty quarter was $84 higher, and the allocation for the second-lowest poverty quarter was $25 higher. In contrast, the allocation for the highest poverty quarter was $48 lower, and the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter was $85 lower. The difference between the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter was $395 or 42 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent).
Similar to the final allocations, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were used (in conjunction with the weighting provisions), the largest districts within each poverty quarter had higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,553) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $817 in the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,486 in the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a Title I allocation per formula-eligible child of $1,553, and the smallest districts had an allocation of $1,043 (a range of $510 or 49 percent). This range between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter was nearly twice as wide as the range for the final allocations ($260 or 20 percent). Compared with the final allocations, applying only the formula-eligibility criteria resulted in the largest increases in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (+$204) and the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (+$203). In contrast, the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter (-$237) and the smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$204) had the largest decreases.
When only the formula-eligibility criteria were used (in conjunction with the weighting provisions), districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,429) than districts of smaller population sizes. In contrast to the pattern for the final allocations, districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) had lower allocations ($953) than districts of other population sizes. Compared with the final allocations, applying only the formula-eligibility criteria resulted in decreases of over $250 for districts with populations of less than 1,000: -$489 for districts with a population of less than 300, -$303 for districts with a population of 300 to 599, and -$262 for districts with a population of 600 to 999. In contrast, the allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more was $106 higher than the final allocation. When only the formula-eligibility criteria were used, the difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $476 or 50 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent).
Removal of State per Pupil Expenditure (SPPE)
When the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE) provision was removed from the FY 15 formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child increased in lower-spending states and decreased in higher-spending states. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the school district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the SPPE provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the SPPE provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.
After removal of the SPPE provision from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ranged from $1,063 in Idaho and $1,067 in Iowa to $2,578 in Wyoming and $2,590 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,526 or 144 percent (table 3.A). This difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the allocations when the SPPE provision was removed were in Florida (+$110) and Nevada (+$103), and the largest decreases were in Massachusetts (-$242) and New Jersey (-$217). Overall, 27 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.
When the SPPE provision was removed from the formulas, the range in the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child across the locales was slightly wider than the range for the final allocations. Similar to the final allocation, large cities had the highest allocation when the SPPE provision was removed ($1,476) (table 3.B; figure 3.2). The allocations for other locales ranged from $1,067 for fringe towns to $1,317 for remote rural areas. Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed, remote towns and fringe rural areas had the largest increases in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child (both +$14), and the largest decreases were for small suburban areas (-$28) and fringe towns (-$21).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
2 A state’s adjusted SPPE cannot be less than 32 percent of the U.S. average SPPE or more than 48 percent of the U.S. average SPPE. For Education Finance Incentive Grants, however, these rules differ slightly: 34 percent of the U.S. average SPPE is used as the minimum (instead of 32 percent), and 46 percent of the U.S. average SPPE is used as the maximum (instead of 48 percent).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the SPPE provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,383). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($951). The allocation for the highest poverty quarter was $433 or 45 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, after removing the SPPE provision, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was $72 lower for the lowest poverty quarter and $4 lower for the second-lowest poverty quarter; in contrast, there was an increase of $23 for the second-highest poverty quarter and an increase of $3 for the highest poverty quarter.
When the SPPE provision was removed from the formulas, there was a systematic pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,541) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $829 in the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,421 in the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts ($1,330) had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child than smaller districts in that quarter, which ranged from $1,086 to $1,185. There were similar patterns for districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE provision resulted in the largest increase in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (+$74) and the largest decrease for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$102).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,426) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,350), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,082). When the SPPE provision was removed, the difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $344, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($334). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE provision resulted in lower allocations for districts with populations under 25,000, ranging from a decrease of $41 for districts with a population of 1,000 to 2,499 to a decrease of $3 for districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999. In contrast, there was an increase of $27 for districts with a population of 25,000 or more.
Removal of State Minimum
The state minimum provision provides a minimum dollar allocation threshold for each state. In FY 15, removal of the state minimum provision resulted in relatively large decreases for some states with small population sizes receiving the state minimum allocation. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the school district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the state minimum provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the state minimum provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.
When the state minimum provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ranged from $978 in Idaho and $1,001 in Utah to $2,042 in Vermont and $2,078 in Wyoming (table 3.A). Since there was a substantial reduction for states with the highest allocations, this range between the lowest and the highest allocations of $1,100 or 112 percent was smaller than the range for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed, the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child did not increase by more than $6 in any state but decreased substantially for many states receiving the state minimum allocation under one or more of the grant formulas (figure I.4). For example, North Dakota’s allocation decreased by $590, Vermont’s decreased by $548, and Wyoming’s decreased by $501 (table 3.A). Overall, 12 states and the District of Columbia had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 38 states and Puerto Rico had increases.
Similar to the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed from the formulas, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,470) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,071 for fringe rural areas and $1,088 for fringe towns to $1,276 for remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.3). The difference between the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for large cities and fringe rural areas was $400 or 37 percent, which was nearly the same as the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed, the largest change was for remote rural areas, which had a reduction of $37. There were increases of $4 for large cities and large suburban areas.
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the state minimum provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,383). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,012). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child in the highest poverty quarter was $371 or 37 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, after removing the state minimum provision, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was $11 lower for the lowest poverty quarter and $4 lower for the second-lowest poverty quarter. In contrast, there was an increase of $2 for the second-highest poverty quarter and an increase of $3 for the highest poverty quarter.
When the state minimum provision was removed from the formulas, there was a systematic pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,547) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $926 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,416 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,262) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,085 to $1,141. There were similar patterns for districts in the second-lowest and the lowest poverty quarters. Compared with the final allocations, removing the state minimum provision resulted in the largest increase in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter (+$7) and the largest decrease for the smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$24).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,379) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,327), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,108). When the state minimum provision was removed, the difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $271, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($334). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum provision resulted in decreases of $16 or more for districts with populations under 1,000. The largest decrease in the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$63); the largest increase was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$4).
Removal of Hold Harmless
Removal of the hold harmless provision allows current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocation, rather than be limited by maximum yearly reductions. For example, removal of the hold harmless provision would permit reductions of over 15 percent for school districts that may have had relatively large decreases in the number of formula-eligible children compared with other districts.
When the hold harmless provision was removed from the FY 15 formulas, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $988 in Idaho and $1,018 in Utah to $2,567 in Wyoming and $2,590 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,601 or 162 percent (table 3.A). Since there was no substantial change for states with the lowest and highest allocations compared with the final allocations, this difference was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were in Maryland (+$28) and New York (+$26). The largest decreases were in Michigan (-$74) and Puerto Rico (-$121). Overall, 24 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 26 states had increases.
Similar to the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed from the formulas, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,474) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,066 for fringe rural areas and $1,078 for fringe towns to $1,247 for remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.4). The difference between the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for large cities and fringe rural areas was $408 or 38 percent, which was similar to the difference for the final allocation ($396 or 37 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed, the largest decreases were for remote rural areas (-$67) and distant rural areas (-$29), and the largest increases were for midsize cities (+$23) and midsize suburban areas (+$14).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the hold harmless provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,361). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,037). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child in the highest poverty quarter was $325 or 31 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, after removing the hold harmless provision, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was $19 lower for the highest poverty quarter. In contrast, there was an increase of $21 for the second-highest poverty quarter, an increase of $5 for the second-lowest poverty quarter, and an increase of $13 for the lowest poverty quarter.
When the hold harmless provision was removed from the formulas, there was a systematic pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,539) than smaller districts; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $952 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,408 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,288) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,102 to $1,170. There were similar patterns for districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless provision resulted in the largest increase for the second-largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (+$35) and the largest decrease for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter (-$56).
In contrast to the pattern for the final allocations and most allocations with other single provisions removed, when the hold harmless provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,336) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,238), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,107). When the hold harmless provision was removed, the difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $229 or 21 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum provision resulted in decreases of $63 or more for districts with populations under 1,000. The largest decrease in the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$204), and the largest increase was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$13).
Removal of Number of Formula-Eligible Children Exceeds 6,500
Removal of the eligibility requirement for school districts to have more than 6,500 formula-eligible children to participate in Concentration Grants reduced the allocations for large districts with relatively low poverty levels (and tended to slightly increase allocations for districts with higher poverty levels). It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.
When the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $984 in Idaho and $995 in Utah to $2,579 in Wyoming and $2,591 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,607 or 163 percent (table 3.A). Since there was no substantial change for states with the lowest and highest allocations compared with the final allocations, this difference was nearly the same as the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, after removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision, the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child did not increase by more than $1 in any state, and the largest decrease was in Maryland (-$13). Overall, 6 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.
When the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,466) than all other locales, similar to the final allocation (table 3.B; figure 3.5). The allocation for other locales ranged from $1,071 for fringe rural areas and $1,089 for fringe towns to $1,314 for remote rural areas. The difference between the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for large cities and fringe rural areas was $396 or 37 percent, which was the same as the range for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed, the largest change was for large suburban areas, which had a reduction of $1; the changes for other locales were less than $1.
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,381). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,021). The allocation in the highest poverty quarter was $360 or 35 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was about the same as the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child decreased by $2 for the lowest poverty quarter; districts in other poverty quarters had changes of less than $1.
After removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision from the formulas, there was a systematic pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,540) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $931 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,414 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,257) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,082 to $1,136. There were similar patterns for the second-lowest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision resulted in the largest increase for the second-largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (+$1) and the largest decrease for the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$8).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,442) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,323), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,108). When the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed, the difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $334 or 30 percent, which was the same as the difference for the final allocations. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision resulted in no differences in the allocations by district size of more than $1.
Removal of Percentage of Formula-Eligible Children Exceeds 15 Percent
Removal of the eligibility requirement for 15 percent or more of the population to be formula eligible increased the allocations for large school districts that benefited from the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the 15 percent eligibility provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.
When the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $976 in Idaho and $998 in Utah to $2,574 in Vermont and $2,575 in Wyoming, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,599 or 164 percent (table 3.A). Since there was no substantial change for states with the lowest and highest allocations, this difference was nearly the same as the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child were in Hawaii (+$16) and Maryland (+$12), and the largest decreases were in South Dakota (-$18) and Vermont (-$16). Overall, 35 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 15 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.
Similar to the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,479) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,062 for fringe rural areas and $1,077 for fringe towns to $1,305 for remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.6). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe rural areas was $417 or 39 percent, which was slightly larger than the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed, there were increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for large cities (+$13) and midsize cities (+$6), and the largest decreases were for small suburban areas, fringe towns, remote towns, and distant rural areas (all -$11).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,384). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for districts in the lowest poverty quarter ($1,025). The allocation for the highest poverty quarter was $359 or 35 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was about the same as the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed, there were increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the lowest poverty quarter (+$2) and the highest poverty quarter (+$4). In contrast, there were decreases for the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$8) and the second-highest poverty quarter (-$1).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, after removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision from the formulas, there was a systematic pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,552) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $931 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,427 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,271) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,069 to $1,144. There were similar patterns for districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision resulted in the largest increase for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (+$15) and the largest decrease for the smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$16).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,429) was higher than the allocations for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,335), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,098). When the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed, the difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $331 or 30 percent, which was nearly the same as the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision resulted in an increase for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$12) and decreases for districts with smaller population sizes; the largest decrease was for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$13).
Removal of Number Weighting
Removal of the number weighting provision decreased the Targeted Grant and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocations per formula-eligible child for larger school districts relative to smaller districts since some large but low-poverty districts benefited from the number weighting provision. Due to the allocation procedure for the final allocation for EFIG, removal of the number weighting provision did not change the state-level allocations compared with the final allocations. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the number weighting provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the number weighting provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.
When the number weighting provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $983 in Utah and $984 in Idaho to $2,579 in Wyoming and $2,590 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,607 or 163 percent (table 3.A). This difference was nearly the same as the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were in New Jersey (+$24) and Mississippi (+$21), and the largest decreases were in Maryland (-$36) and Nevada (-$34). Overall, 22 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 28 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.
Similar to the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed from the formulas, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,435) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,099 for fringe rural areas and $1,121 for small suburban areas to $1,356 for remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.7). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe rural areas was $336 or 31 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were for distant towns (+$44) and remote rural areas (+$43), and the largest decreases were for large cities (-$31) and large suburban areas (-$12).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the number weighting provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,394). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. The allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,017). The allocation for the highest poverty quarter was $377 or 37 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was slightly larger than the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was $14 higher for the highest poverty quarter; in contrast, there were decreases for the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$13), the second-highest poverty quarter (-$10), and the lowest poverty quarter (-$6).
After removal of the number weighting provision from the formulas, there was a general pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,504) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $941 for the second-largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,410 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,205) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,093 to $1,165. There was a similar pattern for districts in the lowest poverty quarter. The one exception to the general pattern was in the second-lowest poverty quarter, where the largest districts had a lower allocation ($1,105) than the smallest districts ($1,151) but a higher allocation than districts of other population sizes in that quarter. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the number weighting provision resulted in the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the second-smallest districts (+$49) and the smallest districts (+$47) in the highest poverty quarter; the largest decreases were for the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$68) and the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (-$51).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,474) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($1,308), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,143). When the number weighting provision was removed, the difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $331 or 29 percent, which was nearly the same as the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the number weighting provision resulted in an increase of $42 for districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999 and increases of more than $30 for districts with populations under 10,000; there was a decrease was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (-$34).
Removal of Percentage Weighting
Removal of the percentage weighting provision decreased the Targeted Grant and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocations per formula-eligible child for school districts with relatively large percentages of formula-eligible children since some large low-poverty districts had higher allocations due to the number weighting provision. Due to the EFIG final allocation procedure, removal of the percentage weighting provision did not change the state-level allocations compared with the final allocations. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the percentage weighting provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the percentage weighting provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.
When the percentage weighting provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ranged from $984 in Idaho and $1,003 in Utah to $2,579 in Wyoming and $2,590 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,606 or 163 percent (table 3.A). Since there was no substantial change for states with the lowest and highest allocations, this difference was the same as the difference for the final allocations. Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child after removal of the percentage weighting provision were in Maryland (+$8) and Nevada (+$8), and the largest decreases were in Mississippi (-$15) and New Jersey (-$10). Overall, 25 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 25 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.
Similar to the final allocations, when the percentage weighting provision was removed from the formulas, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,482) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,063 for fringe rural areas and $1,075 for fringe towns to $1,283 for remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.8). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe rural areas was $419 or 39 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the percentage weighting provision was removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were for large cities (+$16) and midsize cities (+$6), and the largest decreases were for remote rural areas (-$31) and remote towns (-$28).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the percentage weighting provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,372). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,036). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child in the highest poverty quarter was $336 or 32 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child increased for the lowest poverty quarter (+$13), the second-lowest poverty quarter (+$9), and the second-highest poverty quarter (+$2); in contrast, there was a decrease for the highest poverty quarter (-$8).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, after removal of the percentage weighting provision from the formulas, there was a consistent pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,556) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $942 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,428 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,271) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,090 to $1,151. There was a similar pattern for districts in the lowest and second-lowest poverty quarters. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the percentage weighting provision resulted in the largest increase in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter (+$16). The largest decreases were for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter (-$45) and the smallest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (-$30).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the percentage weighting provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,409) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,338), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,098). The difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $311 or 28 percent, which was slightly smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the percentage weighting provision resulted in an increase for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$15); in contrast, there were decreases for districts with populations under 10,000, and the largest decrease was for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$32).
Removal of State Effort
The state effort provision only affected the state-level allocations for Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG), unlike some other provisions, which primarily affected school district-level allocations within states. Removal of the EFIG state effort provision resulted in higher EFIG allocations for states with lower effort factors and lower allocations for states with higher effort factors. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the state effort provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the state effort provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.
When the state effort provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $993 in Idaho and $1,007 in Utah to $2,579 in Wyoming and $2,590 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,597 or 161 percent (table 3.A). This difference was very similar to the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child after removal of the state effort provision were in Minnesota (+$13) and Iowa, Kansas, Puerto Rico, Virginia, and Washington (all +$12). The largest decreases were in Maryland (-$21) and Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (all -$20). Overall, 20 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 30 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.
Similar to the final allocations, when the state effort provision was removed from the formulas, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,467) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,071 for fringe rural areas and $1,084 for fringe towns to $1,313 for remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.9). The difference between the allocation for large cities and fringe rural areas was $396 or 37 percent, which was the same as the difference for the final allocations. Compared with the final allocations, when the state effort provision was removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were for large cities, large suburban areas, and fringe rural areas (all +$1); the largest decreases were for small suburban areas and fringe towns (both -$4).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the state effort provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,379). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,020). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter was $359 or 35 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was about the same as the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state effort provision was removed, the allocations increased for the second-lowest poverty quarter (+$1) and the second-highest poverty quarter (+$2); in contrast, there were decreases for the lowest poverty quarter (-$3) and the highest poverty quarter (-$1).
After removal of the state effort provision from the formulas, there was a consistent pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,542) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $924 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,413 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,261) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,082 to $1,142. There was a similar pattern for the lowest and second-lowest poverty quarters. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state effort provision resulted in the largest increase in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (+$8) and the largest decreases for the second-smallest districts (-$7) and smallest districts (-$6) in the lowest poverty quarter.
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the state effort provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,442) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,327), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,104). The difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $338 or 31 percent, which was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state effort provision resulted in an increase of $3 for districts with a population of 25,000 or more and an increase of less than $1 for districts with a population of less than 300; in contrast, there were decreases of $1 to $5 for districts of all other population sizes.
Removal of State Equity
The state equity provision increases the Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocation per formula-eligible child in states with smaller variations in spending by school districts within their states. Removing this factor increased the EFIG allocation per formula-eligible child for states with larger variations of spending by districts within their states. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the state equity provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the state equity provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.
When the state equity provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $997 in Utah and $1,005 in Idaho to $2,579 in Wyoming and $2,590 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,593 or 160 percent (table 3.A). Since there were relatively small changes for states with the lowest and highest allocations, this difference was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state equity provision was removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were in Illinois (+$32) and Idaho (+$22), and the largest decreases were in Puerto Rico (-$27) and Maryland (-$19). Overall, 26 states and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 24 states and the District of Columbia had no changes or increases.
Similar to the final allocations, when the state equity provision was removed from the formulas, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,482) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,060 for fringe rural areas and $1,081 for fringe towns to $1,309 for remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.10). The difference between the allocation for large cities and fringe rural areas was $422 or 40 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state equity provision was removed, there were increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for large cities (+$16) and midsize cities (+$4), and the largest decreases were for midsize suburban areas and fringe rural areas (both -$11).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the state equity provision was removed from the formulas, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,387). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,014). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child in the highest poverty quarter was $373 or 37 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was slightly larger than difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state equity provision was removed, the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child increased for the highest poverty quarter (+$6) and decreased for the lowest poverty quarter (-$9), the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$5), and the second-highest poverty quarter (-$3).
After removal of the state equity provision from the formulas, there was a consistent pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,553) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $915 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,424 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,256) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,079 to $1,134. There was a similar pattern for districts in the lowest and second-lowest poverty quarters. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state equity provision resulted in the largest increases in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts (+$13) and second-largest districts (+$10) in the highest poverty quarter and the largest decreases for the second-smallest districts (-$17) and smallest districts (-$15) in the lowest poverty quarter.
Similar to the pattern for the final allocation, when the state equity provision was removed from the formulas, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for school districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,438) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,329), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($1,101). The difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $337 or 31 percent, which was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state equity provision resulted in an increase of $6 for districts with a population of 25,000 or more; in contrast, there were decreases of less than $1 to $8 for districts of other population sizes.
Removal of Hold Harmless, Number of Formula-Eligible Children Exceeds 6,500, and Number Weighting
Removal of multiple formula provisions can lead to a better understanding of the interaction between those provisions and enable a more complete analysis of the implications of individual provisions. In FY 15, removal of the number weighting provision decreased the Targeted Grant and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocations per formula-eligible child for larger school districts relative to smaller districts since some large but low-poverty districts benefit from the number weighting provision. Removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision reduced the allocations for large districts with relatively low poverty levels (and tended to slightly increase allocations for districts with higher poverty levels). Removal of the hold harmless provision allowed current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocation, rather than be limited by maximum yearly reductions due to hold harmless provisions. Removal of the hold harmless provision in combination with the number weighting and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions provides information on the long-term impact of removing the number weighting and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions.
When the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $959 in Utah and $991 in Idaho to $2,567 in Wyoming and $2,591 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,632 or 170 percent (table 3.A). Since there were changes for states with the lowest and highest allocations, this difference was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child after removal of the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were in New Jersey (+$78) and Massachusetts (+$59); the largest decreases were in Maryland (-$152) and Nevada (-$113). Overall, 21 states and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 29 states and the District of Columbia had increases.
When the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, large cities had a lower total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,353) than remote rural areas ($1,358) (table 3.B; figure 3.11); this pattern contrasted with the pattern for the final allocations and allocations with single provisions removed. The allocations for other locales ranged from $1,129 for large suburban areas and $1,143 for fringe rural areas to $1,273 for small cities. The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and large suburban areas was $229 or 20 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). When the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were for distant towns (+$97) and remote towns (+$92), and there were decreases for large cities (-$113) and large suburban areas (-$15).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,397). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,021). The allocation in the highest poverty quarter was $376 or 37 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was slightly larger than difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were removed, the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child increased for the highest poverty quarter (+$17) and decreased for the lowest poverty quarter (-$2), the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$36), and the second-highest poverty quarter (-$1).
After the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, there was a general pattern of larger districts in each poverty quarter having lower total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than some smaller districts; this contrasts with the pattern for the final allocations, where larger districts generally had higher allocations. For example, when the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were removed, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a lower Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,401) than the second-largest districts ($1,421) and second-smallest districts ($1,407) in that quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts also had a lower allocation ($1,100) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,115 to $1,223. In the lowest poverty quarter, the largest districts ($990) had a lower allocation than the second-smallest districts ($1,023) and the smallest districts ($1,092) but a higher allocation than the second-largest districts ($982). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions resulted in the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the second-smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter (+$122) and the smallest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (+$97). In contrast, the largest decreases were for the largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$188) and the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$164).
Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($1,335) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. The second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($1,297), and the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 ($1,197). The difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $138 or 11 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless, 6,500 formula-eligible children, and number weighting, provisions resulted in increases for districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999 (+$96) and districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 (+$95); in contrast, there were decreases for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$107) and districts with a population of 25,000 or more (-$90).
Removal of Hold Harmless and State Equity
Removal of multiple formula provisions can lead to a better understanding of the interaction those provisions and enable a more complete analysis of the implications of individual provisions. In FY 15, removal of the hold harmless provision allowed current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocations; with the hold harmless provision, the allocations would be limited by the maximum yearly reductions. Removal of the hold harmless provision in combination with the state equity provision provided information on the long-term impact of removing the state equity provision. The state equity provision is designed to increase the Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocation per formula-eligible child in states with smaller variations in spending by school districts within their states. Removing this provision increased the EFIG allocation per formula-eligible child for states with larger variations of spending by districts within states.
When the hold harmless and state equity provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $1,010 in Idaho and $1,018 in Utah to $2,567 in Wyoming and $2,590 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,579 or 156 percent (table 3.A). Since there were increases for states with the lowest allocations, this difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and state equity provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were in Illinois (+$54) and New York (+$38), and the largest decreases were in Puerto Rico (-$149) and Michigan (-$72). Overall, 29 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 21 states had increases.
Similar to the final allocations and most other allocations with provisions removed, when the hold harmless and state equity provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,497) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,046 for fringe rural areas and $1,062 for fringe towns to $1,254 for midsize cities (table 3.B; figure 3.12). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe rural areas was $450 or 43 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). When the hold harmless and state equity provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were for large cities and midsize cities (both +$31), and the largest decreases were for remote rural areas (-$76) and distant rural areas (-$47).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the hold harmless and state equity provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,371). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,022). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter was $349 or 34 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was slightly smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child increased for the second-highest poverty quarter (+$18) and decreased for the lowest poverty quarter (-$2), the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$4), and the highest poverty quarter (-$10).
After removal of the hold harmless and state equity provisions from the formulas in combination, there was a consistent pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,554) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $927 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,429 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts also had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,294) than districts of smaller population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,095 to $1,172. There were similar patterns for districts of different population sizes within the second-lowest and lowest poverty quarters. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless and state equity provisions resulted in the largest increases in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the second-lowest poverty quarters (both +$37). The largest decreases were for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter (-$58) and the smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$54).
Unlike the pattern for the final allocations, when the hold harmless and state equity provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was lower than the allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts). The allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more ($1,347) was higher than the allocation for districts of all other population sizes, which ranged from $1,096 for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 to $1,228 for districts with a population of less than 300. The difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $251 or 23 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless and state equity provisions resulted in increases for districts with a population of 25,000 (+$24) and districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 (+$7); in contrast, the largest decreases were for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$214) and districts with a population of 300 to 599 (-$93).
Removal of Hold Harmless and Number of Formula-Eligible Children Exceeds 6,500
Removal of multiple factors can lead to a better understanding of the interaction of various Title I formula provisions and enable a more complete analysis of the implications of specific formula provisions. In FY 15, removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision reduced allocations for large districts with relatively low poverty levels (and slightly increased allocations for other districts). Removal of the hold harmless provision allowed current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocation; with the hold harmless provision, the allocations would be limited by maximum yearly reductions. Removal of both the hold harmless provision and 6,500 formula-eligible children provision provided information on the long-term impact of removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision.
When the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $991 in Idaho and $999 in Utah to $2,567 in Wyoming and $2,591 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $1,600 or 162 percent (table 3.A). Since there were relatively small changes for the states with the lowest and highest allocations, this difference was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were in New York (+$29) and New Jersey (+$26), and the largest decreases were in Puerto Rico (-$119) and Michigan (-$71). Overall, 20 states and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 30 states and the District of Columbia had increases.
Similar to the final allocations and most other allocations with provisions removed, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,475) than the other locales, which ranged from $1,068 in fringe rural areas and $1,081 in fringe towns to $1,249 in remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.13). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe rural areas was $407 or 38 percent, which was slightly larger than the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). When the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were for midsize cities (+$24) and midsize suburban areas (+$16), and the largest decreases were for remote rural areas (-$64) and distant rural areas (-$26).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,364). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,022). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter was $342 or 34 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was slightly smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child increased for the second-highest poverty quarter (+$24) and the second-lowest poverty quarter (+$2) and decreased for the highest poverty quarter (-$16) and the lowest poverty quarter (-$2).
After removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions from the formulas in combination, there was a consistent pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,542) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $952 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,411 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts also had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,290) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,105 to $1,175. There were similar patterns for districts of different population sizes within the second-lowest and lowest poverty quarters. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions resulted in the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts (+$34) and second-largest districts (+$39) in the second-highest poverty quarter; the largest decreases were for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter (-$53) and the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$28).
In contrast to the pattern for the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was lower than the allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts). The allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more ($1,333) was higher than the allocation for districts of all other population sizes, which ranged from $1,110 for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 to $1,240 for districts with a population of less than 300. The difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $224 or 20 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions resulted in the largest increases for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$10) and districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 (+$9); in contrast, the largest decreases were for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$202), districts with a population of 300 to 599 (-$77), and districts with a population of 600 to 999 (-$61).
Removal of State Per Pupil Expenditure (SPPE), State Minimum, Hold Harmless, Number Weighting, and State Effort
In FY 15, removal of multiple provisions produced patterns that differed from those for the final allocations or allocations when single provisions were removed. Removal of the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE) factor from the formula generally increased the allocations per formula-eligible child in lower-spending states and decreased the allocations in higher-spending states. Removal of the state minimum provision resulted in relatively large decreases for some states with smaller population sizes receiving the state minimum allocation. Removal of the number weighting provision had a greater negative impact on larger school districts than on smaller districts since some large but low-poverty districts benefited from the number weighting provision. Removal of the Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) state effort provision resulted in higher EFIG allocations for states with lower state effort factors and lower allocations for states with higher effort factors. Removal of the hold harmless provision allowed current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocation; with the hold harmless provision, the allocations would be limited by the maximum yearly reductions. Removal of the hold harmless provision in combination with the SPPE, state minimum, number weighting, and state effort provisions provided information on the long-term impact of removing those provisions, as the initial decreases for some districts were not restricted to the hold harmless amounts.
When the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ranged from $1,033 in New Hampshire and $1,047 in Wyoming to $1,320 in Mississippi and $1,343 in Puerto Rico, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $310 or 30 percent (table 3.A). Since there were relatively large changes for the states with the lowest and highest allocations, this difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Removal of the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions resulted in large changes in the distribution of funds among states. For example, Wyoming had the second-lowest allocation with these provisions removed but had one of the highest allocations in most of the other provision removal analyses. Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child after removal of the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were in Mississippi (+$221) and Alabama (+$198); the largest decreases were in Wyoming (-$1,532), Vermont (-$1,514), North Dakota (-$1,409), and Alaska (-$1,023). Overall, 26 states and the District of Columbia had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 24 states and Puerto Rico had increases.
Similar to the final allocations and most other allocations with provisions removed, when the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,319) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,122 for small suburban areas and $1,151 for large suburban areas to $1,292 for remote rural areas (table 3.B; figure 3.14). The difference between the allocations for large cities and small suburban areas was $198 or 18 percent, which was smaller than the difference between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). When the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were for distant towns (+$120), fringe rural areas (+$110), and remote towns (+$110); there were decreases for large cities (-$147) and remote rural areas (-$22).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the general pattern of large cities having the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was reflected across some states, but there were many exceptions (table 3.C). In 9 of the 32 states with large cities and multiple locales, large cities had the highest allocation compared with all other locales (in contrast, without the removal of these provisions, large cities had the highest allocation in 26 states). No state with multiple locales had large cities receiving the lowest Title I allocation per formula-eligible child. Midsize cities had the highest allocation in 9 states, and small cities had the highest allocation in 3 states. Similar to the final allocations, there were relatively few states (4) in which suburban areas of any type had the highest Title I allocation per formula-eligible child compared with all other locales in the state. There were 14 states in which towns of any type had the highest allocation compared with all other locales in the state, and 11 states in which rural areas of any type had the highest allocation. In 7 of these 11 states, the highest Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was in remote rural areas.
The differences in the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations within states were generally higher for the final allocations than for the allocations when the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed from the formulas in combination. For the final allocations, the differences between the locales with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child exceeded $1,000 in Michigan ($1,062), New Hampshire ($1,232), and Wyoming ($2,146) (table 2.A). When the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed, there were no differences this large. For the final allocations, there were 20 additional states with differences of over $500 and 2 states with differences of under $200; when the provisions were removed, there were 12 states with differences of over $500 and 6 states with differences of under $200 (figure 3.15).
NOTE: The school district locales receiving the highest and lowest allocations vary by state or jurisdiction.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,395) (table 3.B; figure 3.14). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($921). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child in the highest poverty quarter was $474 or 51 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was a larger difference than for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed, the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child increased for the second-highest poverty quarter (+$41) and the highest poverty quarter (+$15) and decreased for the lowest poverty quarter (-$102) and the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$43).
After removal of the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions from the formulas in combination, there was a general pattern of larger districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. However, there was an exception to this pattern for districts in the highest poverty quarter. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a lower Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,360) than districts of other sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,400 to $1,411. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had higher allocations ($1,202) than districts with smaller population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $1,176 to $1,201. There were similar patterns for the second-lowest and lowest poverty quarters. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions resulted in the largest increases in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the second-smallest districts (+$127) and smallest districts (+$120) in the highest poverty quarter; in contrast, the largest decreases were for the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter (-$180) and the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$163).
Unlike the pattern for the final allocations, when the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was lower than the allocation for districts of most other population sizes. The allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,265) was higher than the allocation for districts of all other population sizes, which ranged from $1,182 for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 and districts with a population of less than 300 to $1,205 for districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999. The difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was $83 or 7 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions resulted in the largest increases in Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 (+$75), districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999 (+$65), and districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 (+$61); in contrast, the largest decreases were for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$260), districts with a population of 300 to 599 (-$74), and districts with a population of 25,000 or more (-$58).
Removal of State Minimum and Hold Harmless
Removal of multiple provisions produced patterns that differed from those for the final allocations with single provisions removed. The state minimum provision provided a minimum dollar allocation threshold for each state. Removal of the state minimum provision resulted in relatively large decreases for some states with small population sizes receiving the state minimum allocation. Removal of the hold harmless provision allowed current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocation; with the hold harmless provision, the allocations would be limited by the maximum yearly reductions. Removal of the hold harmless in conjunction with the state minimum provision also allowed the state minimum provision removal to reflect a long-term perspective.
When the state minimum and hold harmless provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $982 in Idaho and $988 in South Dakota to $1,651 in New York and $1,746 in the District of Columbia, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $763 or 78 percent (table 3.A). Since there were relatively large changes for the states with the highest allocations, this difference was less than half of the difference for the final allocations ($1,606 or 163 percent). Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child after removal of the state minimum and hold harmless provisions were in Maryland (+$42) and New York (+$39), and the largest decreases were in North Dakota (-$1,358), Wyoming (-$1,250), and Vermont (-$1,247). Overall, 20 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 30 states had increases.
Similar to the final allocations and most other allocations with provisions removed, when the state minimum and hold harmless provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, large cities had a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,484) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,066 for fringe rural areas and $1,079 for fringe towns to $1,248 for midsize cities (table 3.B; figure 3.16). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe rural areas was $417 or 39 percent, which was slightly larger than the difference for the final allocations ($396 or 37 percent). When the state minimum and hold harmless provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were for midsize cities (+$25) and large cities (+$18), and the largest decreases were for remote rural areas (-$159) and remote towns (-$48).
1 To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.
When the state minimum and hold harmless provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,368). School districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($1,014). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter was $354 or 35 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was about the same as the difference for the final allocations ($357 or 35 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum and hold harmless provisions were removed, the Title I allocation per formula-eligible child increased for the second-highest poverty quarter (+$25); in contrast, there were decreases for the highest poverty quarter (-$13), the lowest poverty quarter (-$10), and the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$4).
After removal of the state minimum and hold harmless provisions from the formulas in combination, there was a consistent pattern of the largest districts in each poverty quarter having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which was similar to the pattern for the final allocations. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($1,553) than smaller districts in that quarter; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes, which ranged from $942 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $1,417 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. In the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,299) than smaller districts in that quarter, which ranged from $1,107 to $1,180. There were similar patterns for districts of different population sizes in the second-lowest and lowest poverty quarters. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum and hold harmless provisions resulted in the largest increases in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for the second-largest districts (+$44) and largest districts (+$42) in the second-highest poverty quarter; in contrast, the largest decreases were for the smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (-$67) and the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter (-$62).
Unlike the pattern for the final allocations, when the state minimum and hold harmless provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was lower than for districts of other population sizes. The allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($1,345) was higher than the allocations for districts of all other population sizes, which ranged from $1,098 for districts with a population of less than 300 to $1,150 for districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999. The difference between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations per formula-eligible child was $247 or 23 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($334 or 30 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum and hold harmless provisions resulted in the largest increase for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$22) and the largest decreases for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$344), districts with a population of 300 to 599 (-$149), and districts with a population of 600 to 999 (-$102).
Cost Adjustment Using the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index (ACS-CWI)
When the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index (ACS-CWI) was applied, the relative total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child in low-cost areas increased and the allocations in high-cost areas decreased. Applying the ACS-CWI increased the difference in the Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the highest and lowest allocations. The cost-adjusted final allocations ranged from $3,016 in Vermont to $1,028 in California, a difference of $1,988, which was $381 more than the difference for the unadjusted final allocations (table 3.AA).
Applying the ACS-CWI increased the relative value of the funding for areas with lower costs of living. After the cost adjustment, the total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $1,161 in large suburban areas to $1,620 in remote rural areas; the second-highest cost-adjusted allocation was in large cities ($1,421) (table 3.BB). When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the cost-adjusted allocations ranged from $1,119 in fringe towns to $1,473 in large cities.
Applying the ACS-CWI resulted in a larger difference in the total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child between the highest and lowest poverty quarters. After cost adjustment, the Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child ranged from $1,044 for the lowest poverty quarter to $1,440 for the highest poverty quarter, a difference of $396 (compared with a difference of $357 for the unadjusted allocations). When the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE), state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, the difference in the Title I allocations between school districts in the lowest poverty quarter ($941) and the highest poverty quarter ($1,472) was $531 (compared with a difference of $474 for the unadjusted allocations).
Across most of the formula analyses, the cost-adjusted total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were higher for smaller districts than for larger districts. For example, when the hold harmless and number of formula-eligible children exceeds 6,500 provisions were removed from the formulas in combination, districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) had the highest cost-adjusted allocation ($1,495), and districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 had the lowest cost-adjusted allocation ($1,216).
The total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child were analyzed by locale and state after the SPPE, state minimum, hold harmless, number weighting, and state effort provisions were removed from the formulas in combination. After applying the ACS-CWI, the changes in patterns across the locales were reflected across many states. In 15 of the 43 states with remote rural areas, remote rural areas had the highest cost-adjusted Title I allocation per formula-eligible child compared with any other locale (table 3.CC). Large cities had the highest cost-adjusted allocation in 2 states (compared with 9 states for the unadjusted allocations). Applying the ACS-CWI also increased the differences in the Title I allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations in many states. The number of states with differences of $500 or more increased from 12 to 29.
