|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Department of Education uses estimates of school-age children in
poverty to allocate federal funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act for education programs to aid disadvantaged children. Histori-
cally, the allocations have been made by a two-stage process: the department's
role has been to allocate Title I funds to counties; the states have then distributed
these funds to school districts. Until recently, the department has based the
county allocations on the numbers and proportions of poor school-age children in
each county from the most recent decennial census. States have used several
different data sources, such as the decennial census and the National School
Lunch Program, to distribute the department's county allocations to districts.
In 1994 Congress authorized the Bureau of the Census to provide updated
estimates of poor school-age children every 2 years, to begin in 1996 with esti-
mates for counties and in 1998 with estimates for school districts. The Depart-
ment of Education is to use the school district estimates to allocate Title I basic
and concentration grants directly to districts for the 1999-2000 and later school
years, unless the Secretaries of Education and Commerce determine that they are
"inappropriate or unreliable" on the basis of a study by the National Research
Council. That study is being carried out by the Committee on National Statistics'
Panel on Estimates of Poverty for Small Geographic Areas.
Under a direct allocation procedure, there would be no allocations to coun-
ties and, hence, no need for states to distribute them to school districts. However,
a Provision in the 1994 legislation permits states to aggregate the department's
OCR for page 2
2
SMAL L-ARE4 ESTIMATES OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN IN POVERTY
allocation amounts for all districts in a state that have fewer than 20,000 people
and to redistribute the aggregate amount among those districts by using some
other method that the department approves.
UPDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATES
The Census Bureau's procedure for producing updated school district esti-
mates of poor school-age children is a basic synthetic shares approach, in which
the proportions of poor school-age children in school districts within each county
in 1989 (as measured by the 1990 census) are applied to updated estimates of
numbers of poor school-age children from a statistical model for counties. The
Census Bureau decided that the most recent school district estimates it could
produce by the end of 1998 (for the Title I allocations in spring 1999) were for
school-age children in 1996 who were living in and related to a family in poverty
in 1995. Reasons for this decision included the time required to ascertain the
changes in school district boundaries since the 1990 census and the 1-2 year lag
in the availability of the data sources used in the county statistical model.
The synthetic shares method assumes that the shares of poor school-age
children among school districts in each county in 1995 are the same as they were
in 1989. Consequently, the synthetic estimates reflect only the changes in school-
age poverty from 1989 to 1995 that occurred in each county as a whole. The
estimates do not capture any variation in school-age poverty among the districts
within each county that occurred since the 1990 census.
The synthetic shares method was used because no administrative records
data are available for a model for school districts (which would be similar to the
Census Bureau's county model) that could capture changes in poverty for school
districts within counties. There are several reasons for the lack of data and the
difficulties of developing estimates for school districts: most districts are small
in size, many district boundaries do not coincide with the boundaries for counties
or other governmental units, district boundaries can and often do change, and
some districts do not serve all elementary and secondary grades.
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION
In assessing the Census Bureau's 1995 school district estimates of the num-
bers of poor school-age children for use in Title I allocations for the 1999-2000
school year, the panel first examined the 1995 county estimates that were pro-
duced by the Census Bureau's statistical model. Although the Department of
Education would not use the county estimates for Title I allocations if it were to
make allocations directly to school districts, the county estimates are central to
the synthetic shares method for district estimates.
The model that was used to produce the 1995 county estimates is essentially
the same model that was used to produce county estimates of poor school-age
OCR for page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
children for 1993. On the basis of internal and external evaluations that were
conducted of alternative 1993 county models, which resulted in some changes in
the Census Bureau's original 1993 county model, the panel supported the use of
revised 1993 county estimates for Title I allocations for the 1998-1999 school
year (see National Research Council, 1998~. Additional evaluations of the 1995
county model, which focused on its behavior when estimated for several time
periods, confirmed that the county model is performing well. A separate estima-
tion procedure for Puerto Rico, which is treated as a single county and school
district for Title I allocations, also appears to be reasonable, given the available
data.
Evaluations of the Census Bureau's synthetic procedure for school districts
over the 1980-1990 period revealed large differences for many districts between
the synthetic estimates of poor school-age children and the comparison estimates
from the 1990 census; the large differences occur mainly for small districts. In
contrast, the estimates for school districts with 40,000 or more people in 1990 are
not markedly worse than the county model estimates. Also, a number of districts
are coterminous with counties, so that their estimates come from the county
model. Together, these two groups of districts comprise only 13 percent of the
districts (as of 1990), but they contain 62 percent of all school-age children.
Although the Census Bureau's 1995 estimates of poor school-age children
have potentially large errors for many school districts, the panel nonetheless
concludes that they are not inappropriate or unreliable to use for direct Title I
allocations to districts as intended by the 1994 legislation. In reaching this
conclusion, the panel interprets "inappropriate and unreliable" in a relative sense.
Some set of estimates must be used to distribute Title I funds to school districts.
The panel concludes that the Census Bureau's 1995 estimates are generally as
good as-and, in some instances, better than-estimates that are currently being
used. Also, while further research is needed, a limited evaluation suggests that
school lunch data are not appreciably better than the 1990 census for constructing
within-county school district shares of poor school-age children.
A benefit of using the synthetic shares estimates is that the department would
be able to determine eligibility of school districts for both basic and concentration
Title I grants on the basis of a consistent set of estimates nationwide. Also, use of
the synthetic shares estimates for direct allocation of concentration grants would
respond to the intent of the 1994 legislation that eligible districts be able to
receive concentration grants even when they are in counties that would not be
eligible under the current two-stage allocation process.
The Census Bureau's updated estimates of poor school-age children for
counties are the only postcensal small-area estimates of poverty that have been
thoroughly evaluated. It is important that they be considered in the direct alloca-
tions to school districts, as is done when the allocations are based on the synthetic
estimates. If a state chooses to reallocate the amounts for school districts with
less than 20,000 population, the county estimates can be reflected in the alloca
OCR for page 4
4
SMAL L-ARE4 ESTIMATES OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN IN POVERTY
lions by grouping the allocations for small size districts by county and redistrib-
uting the county totals to those districts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) The panel recommends to the Secretaries of Education and Com-
merce that the Census Bureau's 1995 school district estimates of poor
school-age children be used to make direct Title I allocations to school
districts for the 1999-2000 school year.
(2) The panel recommends that any state plan approved by the Depart-
ment of Education for redistributing the sum of the department's allo-
cations for school districts with under 20,000 population maintain the
county total amounts for such districts to the extent possible.
The Department of Education should undertake a thorough study of the
direct allocation of Title I funds to school districts, which will be a new procedure
for the 1999-2000 school year. The study should examine the allocation methods
used and assess the results.
FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
It is important to continue an active program of research and development
for methods of estimating poverty for school-age children at the county and
school district levels. The county model is performing well, but, like other
models, it can probably be improved. Work should also be pursued to improve
the current synthetic shares method for school district estimates. Research on
ways to produce the estimates with data that are closer in time to the year for
which the allocations are to be made should also be pursued.
Improving school district estimates so that they reflect within-county, as well
as between-county, changes in school-age poverty over time will require a sub-
stantial research and development effort. It is particularly important to obtain
relevant administrative records data for districts, such as income tax return data
coded to the district level. Such administrative data, together with data from the
2000 census and the planned American Community Survey, could provide the
means to develop a much improved model-based approach for estimating school-
age poverty at the district level.
For its work in small-area poverty estimation, the Census Bureau needs to
provide adequate staff and other resources on a continuing basis. Because small-
area estimates of poverty support a range of important public policy needs for
federal, state, and local governments, the Bureau's program should include not
only data and model development and production, but also thorough evaluation
and detailed documentation of each set of estimates produced.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
district estimates
