Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

4 Recommendations for Title I Allocations for the 1999-2000 School Year
Pages 75-82

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 75...
... In addition, it has produced school district estimates of poor school-age children for 1995 by applying within-county school district shares of poor school-age children from the 1990 census to the 1995 county estimates. The Census Bureau has also produced school district estimates of total population and total school-age children for 1996 by using a similar synthetic shares method, to accompany the updated poverty estimates.
From page 76...
... The panel summarizes the pros and cons of using the 1995 school district estimates in the next section and then presents its recommendations for Title I allocations for the 1999-2000 school year. ASSESSMENT OF 1995 SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATES It is not possible to develop very reliable estimates of poor school-age children for most school districts with the currently available data.
From page 77...
... Also, variations in program participation make it unclear how reliably school lunch data indicate differences in poverty among school districts across the nation. The limitations of available data for school districts constrained the Census Bureau to use a basic synthetic shares approach.
From page 78...
... The Census Bureau's synthetic shares procedure, based on 1980 census school district shares applied to 1989 county model estimates, identified similar percentages of school districts and poor school-age children that would be eligible for concentration grants under direct allocations but would not be eligible under the two-stage process. Only about half of the school districts that were classified by one source the 1990 census or the synthetic estimates as being eligible for concentration grants under direct allocations but not under the two-stage process were so classified by the other source.
From page 79...
... The panel believes aggregation to county subtotals should be performed separately for basic and concentration grants. RECOMMENDATIONS The 1994 Title I legislation expressed the congressional intent to move to a system of direct allocations of Title I funds to school districts provided that the Census Bureau's estimates are adequate for this purpose.
From page 80...
... However, states already must determine the individual county components for such districts under the current two-stage allocation process. Moreover, the Department of Education currently allows several states those in which school district boundaries bear little relationship to county boundaries to ignore the county allocations in distributing the total allocation for the state among school districts, and the department could grant similar exceptions for state plans to reallocate amounts for districts under 20,000 population.
From page 81...
... While the commonwealth's 1990 decennial census provides estimates for 1989, no estimates of Puerto Rican school-age children in poverty can be made for 1995 from the Census Bureau's county model because the appropriate federal tax and food stamp data are not available for Puerto Rico. The Census Bureau computed 1995 estimates for Puerto Rico from data collected in the 1996 Puerto Rican Family Income Survey that was conducted in the commonwealth in February-March 1997.
From page 82...
... Consequently, the panel recommends that the 1995 estimates for Puerto Rico be used in the direct Title I allocations for the upcoming 1999-2000 school year. The Puerto Rico Family Income Survey is expected to be conducted at regular intervals in the future.


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.