Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty Interim Report 3 (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 School District Estimates
3 School District Estimates
Pages 39-74
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 39... ...
The first two sets of estimates are needed to implement the allocation formulas for both basic and concentration grants; the third set of estimates is needed to determine which school districts have fewer than 20,000 people.2 This chapter first considers estimates of poor school-age children for school districts. It reviews the difficulties that confront attempts to develop such estimates; describes the procedure that the Census Bureau used to develop districtlevel estimates of school-age children in July 1996 who were in poor families in 1995; and assesses the limited evaluations that are possible of these estimates.
|
From page 40... ...
These problems include the small population size of most districts and several other features of their boundaries and scope: school district boundaries in many instances cross county lines; they can and often do change over time; and some school districts cover specific grade levels, such as kindergarten-8 or 9-12. Because of these problems, there are no data sources now available for developing updated school district estimates of poor school-age children by using the type of model-based approach that was used for county estimates.
|
From page 41... ...
.3 In another 17 states, school district boundaries coincide with other political units, such as townships. The boundaries of most, but not all, of the school districts in these states respect county lines.
|
From page 42... ...
Developing updated estimates of poor school-age children for districts that serve specific grades is difficult because a method must be devised to allocate the limited available data on school-age poverty to the age range that is appropriate to the grade range of the school district. Data Sources The Census Bureau' s county model can readily provide updated estimates of the number of poor school-age children for the small subset of school districts that comprise entire counties.
|
From page 43... ...
(7) The 1995 school district estimates of poor school-age children were the estimates from step (6)
|
From page 44... ...
. The Census Bureau's 1995 school district estimates are not the only input to the Title I allocation formula.
|
From page 45... ...
Variability in Census Estimates The two inputs to the Census Bureau's synthetic model for school district estimates of the number of poor school-age children are the county model estimates for the target year, which have been extensively evaluated (see Chapter 2) , and the 1990 census estimates for determining school district shares, which are discussed in this section.
|
From page 46... ...
The Census Bureau used the ratio-adjusted 1990 census estimates of poor school-age children to construct the 1995 school district estimates but, given time constraints, did not conduct research on ways to further reduce the variability of the census estimates. Such research should be a high priority.
|
From page 47... ...
. This procedure is analogous to that used by the Census Bureau to produce the 1995 school district estimates from 1990 census shares applied to 1995 county model estimates, except that the 1980 census data are not ratio adjusted.
|
From page 48... ...
The 1980 and 1990 census school district files were matched, using their identification numbers and other characteristics, and the following kinds of 1990 districts were dropped from the evaluation file: · 928 districts or district parts for which the district or part was coterminous with a county and, hence, for which the county model would provide estimates; · 4,108 districts that were not "unified," that is, that covered a limited grade range, such as Kindergarten-8 or 9-12; · 416 districts that were newly formed and had no counterpart in 1980; 12 districts in counties that changed boundaries between 1980 and 1990; . and · 609 districts that crossed county lines and for which one or more of the county pieces in one year had no counterpart in the other year.
|
From page 49... ...
For the remaining 94 percent of districts, the two tabulations were exactly the same or differed by less than 5 percent, indicating that the same identification number is a reasonably good indicator of stability in school district boundaries. Summary of Evaluation Results: Absolute Differences Table 3-3 provides summary statistics for the three sets of school district estimates of poor schoolage children in 1989 in comparison with the 1990 census estimates.
|
From page 50... ...
Synthetic method using 1980 census shares applied to 1990 census county estimates (3) National stable shares method using 1980 census shares applied to 1990 census national estimate 1989 County Estimates from 10.7 Census Bureau's County Model 22.2 18.0 28.7 60.0 55.4 71.7 16.4 NOTES: School district estimates are based on 8,810 districts (9,243 districts in the 1980-1990 evaluation file minus 66 districts with estimated sample population of 30 or less in 1980 or 1990 and an additional 367 school districts with estimates of no children in poverty)
|
From page 51... ...
, which applies 1980 census school district shares within counties to the 1990 census county estimates of poor school-age children, performs somewhat better: it reduces the average absolute difference measure by 37 percent (18.0/28.7) and the average proportional absolute difference measure by 23 percent (55.4/71.7)
|
From page 52... ...
As noted above, the panel believes there are ways to further reduce the variability in the 1990 census estimates beyond the reduction achieved by using simple ratio estimates instead of simple inflation estimates. A reduction in the variability of the 1990 census estimates would permit not only a more accurate assessment of the synthetic shares approach, but also an improvement in the 1995 school district estimates that are formed by applying 1990 census withincounty school district shares to the 1995 estimates from the county model.
|
From page 53... ...
This finding is consistent with a similar finding for the 1989 county model estimates, which, in turn, was attributed to the state model. School Lunch Data As noted at the beginning of the chapter, there is a lack of administrative data with which to estimate school-age poverty for school districts.
|
From page 54... ...
The second reason for the Census Bureau not to use school lunch data in developing a consistent set of school district estimates nationwide is that counts of participants in the National School Lunch Program differ from poor school 8NCES is the only federal agency that attempts to obtain school lunch data for school districts. The Department of Agriculture obtains aggregate counts each October at the state level of the number of children approved for free lunch and reduced-price lunch in both public and participating private schools.
|
From page 55... ...
Second, if the use of different estimation procedures produces estimates of varying quality across school districts, there could be a problem of equity for concentration grants because, under direct allocations, the concentration grant allocations to one area can affect the allocations to other areas. Such effects cannot occur under the current two-stage allocation process, in which states that use school lunch data (or another data source)
|
From page 56... ...
In effect, these 17 states use a shares approach for school district estimates that is similar to the Census Bureau's method, except that the district shares within counties are computed on the basis of contemporaneous counts of school lunch participants instead of 1990 census estimates of poor school-age children. The panel undertook a limited evaluation of a school lunch-based shares approach in one state New York for which it was able to obtain complete free and reduced-price school lunch data for almost all public schools for 1989-1990 and assign them to school districts and counties.9 There are 623 New York State school districts in the 1980-1990 evaluation file, or 7 percent of the total number of districts in the file.
|
From page 57... ...
using 23.9 53.4 1980 census shares applied to 1990 census county estimates Synthetic method using 22.3 48.7 1989-1990 free lunch participants applied to 1990 census county estimates Synthetic method using 24.2 52.1 1989- 1990 free and reduced price lunch participants applied to 1990 census county estimates U.S. School District Estimates 18.0 55.4 (N = 8,810)
|
From page 58... ...
However, looking at both absolute differences and category algebraic differences, the use of free lunch participants as the basis for estimates is marginally more accurate than the other two methods that were evaluated. This finding suggests that it could be worthwhile to conduct a similar analysis for other states to determine if there is enough consistency across jurisdictions in the relationship of school lunch program data to school-age poverty to warrant further consideration of the use of school lunch data for school district estimates.
|
From page 59... ...
applying 1980 census school district shares within the nation as a whole to the national 1990 census number. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 provide summary statistics for the three sets of school district estimates of 1990 total population and 1990 total school-age children, respectively, compared with the 1990 census numbers.
|
From page 60... ...
Synthetic method using 9.2 12.6 1980 census shares applied to 1990 census county numbers (3) National stable shares method 13.9 18.9 using 1980 census shares applied to 1990 census national number 1990 County Estimates from 2.3 3.6 Census Bureau's Demographic Estimates Program NOTES: School district estimates are based on 9,201 districts (9,243 districts in the 1980-1990 evaluation file minus 42 districts with estimated population 30 or less in 1980 or 1990)
|
From page 61... ...
Synthetic method using 10.4 16.1 1980 census shares applied to 1990 census county numbers (3) National stable shares method 16.6 20.6 using 1980 census shares applied to 1990 census national number 1990 County Estimates from 4.9 6.3 Census Bureau's Demographic Estimates Program NOTES: School district estimates are based on 9,201 districts (9,243 districts in the 1980-1990 evaluation file minus 42 districts with estimated population 30 or less in 1980 or 1990)
|
From page 62... ...
Applying a relative definition, one can argue that, in the context of currently available information, a direct allocation procedure that uses the Census Bureau's school district estimates is at least as good as and perhaps preferable to the alternative, which is for the states to continue to distribute the county allocations from the Department of Education to school districts by using a variety of data sources. For suballocations of Title I funds, the states at present use several types of data: · Seven states and the District of Columbia make no suballocations to districts because their school districts are coterminous with counties (three of these states make suballocations to a few districts in their states that are not coterminous with counties, such as a city that is a separate district from the remainder of the county)
|
From page 63... ...
to distribute the county allocations to school districts could readily make use of the Census Bureau's school district estimates. In fact, the Bureau's census shares-based estimates are likely to be somewhat more accurate than the corresponding estimates that the states have been producing because the Bureau has access to 1990 census block data and so can more accurately retabulate the census data to reflect changes in school district boundaries; the states have had access only to public use census files for 1989-1990 school district boundaries.l2 In addition, the ratio-adjustment procedure employed by the Census Bureau to estimate census shares somewhat reduces their sampling variability.
|
From page 64... ...
For other states, the county totals, which, in turn, reflect (approximately) the Census Bureau's updated estimates from its county model, are maintained.l3 Direct allocation of basic grants to school districts by using the Census Bureau's synthetic shares estimates would have the same property of essentially respecting the county totals because the Census Bureau's estimation procedure controls the school district estimates to county estimates derived separately from its county model.
|
From page 65... ...
, then the county totals for these districts may not be similar to the county amounts under the two-stage process.l4 The panel has a concern about this possible outcome: the county allocations that are made under the current two-stage process reflect (approximately) the Census Bureau's county estimates from its county model, and these estimates are the only small-area estimates of poor school-age children that have been thoroughly evaluated and determined to be reasonably reliable.l5 Direct allocations that use the Census Bureau's synthetic shares school district estimates would also reflect (approximately)
|
From page 66... ...
Tabulations of 1990 census data in the evaluation file identified 30 percent of school districts, containing 60 percent of poor school-age children, as eligible for concentration grants under the current two-stage allocation process.l7 Eligible districts under the two-stage process were 65 percent of the total districts in eligible counties. (In states that use another data source to distribute county concentration amounts to districts, such as free lunch participants, a higher percentage of school districts in eligible counties may be classified as eligible for concentration grants; see below.)
|
From page 67... ...
l8 Evaluation One of the reasons for the legislation mandating direct allocations to school districts was to target concentration grants to all eligible school districts, including those in ineligible counties. To assess the appropriateness and reliability of the Census Bureau's updated school district estimates of poor school-age children for direct allocation of concentration grants, the panel first examined the rate of agreement between the Census Bureau's synthetic shares method (1)
|
From page 68... ...
school district estimates are produced by applying 1980 census within-county school district shares of poor school-age children to the county model estimates for 1989 and controlling to the 1990 census national estimate of poor school-age children in 1989. SOURCE: Data from Bureau of the Census; see National Research Council (1988:Table 4-4 [model b]
|
From page 69... ...
First, they apply only to a subset of school districts in the evaluation file, which are, themselves, a subset of total districts. Second, like all of the evaluations of the Census Bureau's school district estimates, they are based on a single time comparison.
|
From page 70... ...
school district estimates are produced by applying 1980 census within-county school district shares of poor school-age children to the county model estimates for 1989 and controlling to the 1990 census national estimate of poor school-age children in 1989. See text for discussion.
|
From page 71... ...
school district estimates are produced by applying 1980 census within-county school district shares of poor school-age children to the county model estimates for 1989 and controlling to the 1990 census national estimate of poor school-age children in 1989. See text for discussion.
|
From page 72... ...
Reallocation of Concentration Grants The option for states to redistribute concentration grant direct allocations for school districts with fewer than 20,000 people raises several issues. Presumably, states might propose to use another method to redistribute the allocations among the districts that the Department of Education determined to be eligible for concentration grants on the basis of the Census Bureau' s estimates.
|
From page 73... ...
For example, if a county has two school districts and only one district is eligible for a concentration grant according to the Census Bureau's estimates of poor schoolage children, but both districts are eligible by using school lunch data, then the first district will lose some of its dollars to the second district. Presumably, similar situations occur under the current two-stage allocation process, in which school district concentration grants are allotted from county totals.22 However, such situations may be somewhat more likely to occur under direct allocations, which will provide concentration grants to eligible districts in counties that do not meet the concentration grant threshold.
|
From page 74... ...
However, the panel recognizes that there are uncertainties about the operation of the formulas: for example, the extent to which the sum of direct school district allocations for counties will approximate the allocations that would result for counties under the current twostage process and the extent to which there may be significant reallocations of concentration grant dollars from poorer to less poor districts with county controls. For this reason, the panel believes it is critically important for the Department of Education to undertake a thorough study of the direct allocation process, both the methods used by the states and the results.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.