Archived Information

**Study of Educational Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report**

**Executive Summary**

## Background and Purpose 

The enactment of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the 1994
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
brought important changes in the federal role in elementary and
secondary education. Categorical programs were redesigned to provide
more flexible support for educational improvement in a framework of
challenging state standards, assessments aligned with those standards,
and capacity building through sustained professional development in core
academic subjects. Goals 2000 has supported state and local activities
in developing aligned standards, assessments, curricula, teacher
preparation, and professional development.

The Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding (SERFF) examines
the allocation and use of funds provided to school districts and schools
through Goals 2000 and five of the largest ESEA programs for FY 1997,
which corresponds to the 1997-98 school year. The six federal programs
included in this study are:

-   Title I, Part A: Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards,
    Grants to LEAs

-   Title II: Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Elementary
    and Secondary Programs

-   Title III, Section 3132: Technology Literacy Challenge Fund

-   Title IV: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, State and
    Local Agency Programs

-   Title VI: Innovative Education Program Strategies

-   Goals 2000: Educate America Act, State and Local Systemic
    Improvement

The study examines the extent to which program funds are used for
various strategies for improving student achievement, including
professional development, technology, extended learning time, and
schoolwide reform and improvement. The report also examines the
targeting of federal program funds at the district and school levels, in
comparison with the distribution of state and local funds.

A preliminary report was released in July 1999; this final report
presents a more comprehensive set of findings from the study, with
additional information on targeting, the comparability of state and
local resources in Title I and non-Title I schools, the uses of Title I
funds at the district and school levels, and the impact of Title I funds
on total resource levels in different types of Title I schools. The
final report examines the share of Title I funds used for teachers,
aides, technology, and professional development, comparing high- and
low-poverty schools as well as in Title I schools overall. The final
report also examines the financial contribution of Title I in comparison
to state compensatory education programs.

### Overview of the federal programs under study

The six programs in this study accounted for 41 percent of all federal
revenues for elementary and secondary education for 1997-98 and
2.7 percent of total revenues for elementary and secondary education
from all sources (federal, state, and local). Title I, Part A is by far
the largest of the six programs (\$7.3 billion), followed by Goals 2000
(\$476 million), Title IV (\$425 million), Title VI (\$310 million),
Title II (\$260 million), and the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
(\$200 million).

Four of the programs provide funding to a large majority of school
districts through formula grants, while two provide competitive grants
to a smaller number of districts. All 14,000 school districts are
eligible to receive funds from Title II, Title IV, and Title VI, and
Title I funds go to 12,900 districts (92 percent of the districts). In
contrast, Goals 2000 provided competitive grants to 6,700 districts
(47 percent) and Title III grants supported technology programs in
2,600 districts (18 percent).

### Study design

Data were collected from a national sample of 180 districts and 720
schools within those districts.[^1] At the district level, a
questionnaire on the uses of funds was administered from each of the
programs in this study, and also collected information on expenditures
from federal programs, personnel data, and Title I allocations to
schools. At the school level, a questionnaire was administered on
programs and resources available in the school, with a focus on
professional development, technology, and Title I. Surveys of classroom
teachers, Title I teachers, special education teachers, and Title I
aides were also conducted. Surveys were distributed to "Title I"
teachers and aides in both targeted assistance and schoolwide programs
if they were identified by their schools as being paid through Title I
funds. Information on the uses of Title I funds at the school level was
collected if available. In addition, the study collected information
from all 50 states on state suballocations of program funds to school
districts. All data collected was for the 1997-98 school year (FY 1997
appropriations) unless otherwise indicated.

Analyses of school and teacher level data in this report often examined
differences between high- and low-poverty schools, elementary and
secondary schools, Title I and non-Title I schools, and Title I
schoolwide and targeted assistance programs. School poverty levels were
based on the percentage of students eligible for the free and
reduced-price lunch program. District poverty levels were based on
census poverty data. The term "highest-poverty schools" was used to
refer to schools where at least 75 percent of the students were eligible
for free or reduced-price lunches. "High-poverty schools" included all
schools at or above the 50 percent poverty level, and "low-poverty
schools" included schools below 35 percent poverty.

## Targeting of Federal Funds 

Each of the six federal education programs in this study has different
priorities and provisions governing the allocation of funds among
states, school districts, and other agencies. For all six programs, the
Department of Education allocates funds to states in accordance with
statutory formulas, and the states then suballocate the funds to school
districts and other agencies eligible to receive the funds, either
through formula (Titles I, II, IV, and VI) or through competitive grants
(Title III and Goals 2000). The number of poor school-age children is a
factor in allocations for five of the six programs.

# Distribution of federal, state, and local revenues among high- and low-poverty districts

**Federal education funds in general were much more targeted to
high‑poverty districts than were state and local funds.** Districts in
the highest‑poverty quartile, which have 25 percent of the nation\'s
school‑age children and 49 percent of the nation\'s poor children,
received 43 percent of federal funds but only 23 percent of state and
local funds. In contrast, districts in the lowest‑poverty quartile,
which have 25 percent of all children and 7 percent of the poor
children, received 11 percent of federal funds but 30 percent of state
and local funds.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> > Exhibit reads: **The highest-poverty school districts received 43
> > percent of all federal revenues, compared with only 23 percent of
> > state and local revenues.**

**Although state revenues were somewhat targeted to high‑poverty
districts, they did not fully compensate for funding disparities related
to the local property tax base.** Districts in the highest‑poverty
quartile received 18 percent of local education revenues and 27 percent
of state education revenues, but their share of state and local funds
combined (23 percent) was still less than their share of school‑age
children (25 percent). Districts in the lowest-poverty quartile received
39 percent of local revenues, more than double the amount in the
highest-poverty quartile.

![](media/image2.wmf) **Despite the higher level of federal support for
the highest-poverty districts, total revenues per pupil in these
districts were 10 percent lower than in the lowest-poverty districts.**
The highest-poverty districts had federal revenues of \$692 per pupil
and total revenues of \$6,245 per pupil, while the lowest-poverty
districts had federal revenues of \$172 per pupil and total revenues of
\$6,958 per pupil.

> Exhibit reads: **Although federal revenues provided an additional
> \$693 per pupil in the highest-poverty districts, compared with \$172
> in the lowest-poverty districts, the highest-poverty districts still
> received 10 percent less in total revenues per pupil (\$6,248)
> compared with the lowest-poverty districts (\$6,967).**

**In the poorest districts, federal funds accounted for 11.1 percent of
district revenues, compared with only 2.5 percent in the lowest-poverty
districts.** Similarly, Title I provided 4.5 percent of total revenues
in the poorest districts, compared with 0.7 percent in the
lowest-poverty districts. Across all districts, federal funds comprised
6.3 percent and Title I comprised 2.4 percent of total revenues.

> ![](media/image2.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: **In the highest-poverty districts, federal funds
> provided 11.1 percent of district revenues and Title I provided 4.5
> percent---about twice as high as the national average for all
> districts (6.3 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively).**

Title I targeted the largest share of its funds to high‑poverty
districts, but other federal programs also targeted significant shares
of funding to these districts. Districts in the highest‑poverty quartile
received one-half (50 percent) of Title I funds and about one‑third of
the funds from Title II (35 percent), Title III (36 percent), Title IV
(33 percent), Title VI (34 percent), and Goals 2000 (33 percent).
Districts in the lowest‑poverty quartile received 8 percent of Title I
funds and somewhat higher shares from Title II (17 percent), Title III
(11 percent), Title IV (21 percent), Title VI (17 percent), and
Goals 2000 (15 percent).

# Distribution of federal program funds by urbanicity

**Rural districts received a relatively large share of the funds for
competitive grants, while large urban districts received a share of
these funds that was less than their share of school-age children and
poor children.** Rural districts received 21 percent of Goals 2000 funds
and 26 percent of Title III funds, well above their share of school-age
children (13 percent) and poor children (14 percent). In contrast, large
urban districts received 16 percent of Goals 2000 funds and 15 percent
of Title III funds, less than their share of school-age children (18
percent) and poor children (29 percent). The distribution of formula
grants (Titles I, II, VI, and VI) among urban and rural districts was
more closely related to the distribution of school-age children and poor
children.

# Impact of 1994 reauthorization on targeting

# 

#  The 1994 reauthorization had little impact on district‑level targeting. For all five programs in this study that existed in FY 1994, the distribution of funds among district poverty quartiles was virtually the same in FY 1997 as in FY 1994. For Title I, changes in district targeting provisions have had little impact on district-level targeting of Title I funds because most funds continue to flow through the Basic Grants formula. Funding for the more targeted Concentration Grant formula did increase substantially, but this formula still allocates only 14 percent of total funding. A new Targeted Grants formula created in the 1994 reauthorization would direct a greater share of the funds to the highest-poverty districts, but this formula has not been funded.

#  Title I targeting at the school level increased significantly after the 1994 reauthorization. In 1997-98, nearly all (96 percent) of the highest-poverty schools received Title I funds, up from 79 percent in 1993-94. In addition, low-poverty schools became less likely to receive Title I funds (28 percent in 1997-98, down from 49 percent in 1993-94).

# School-level targeting of Title I funds

**Data on Title I allocations to schools show a mixed picture of
school-level targeting**. On the one hand, the highest-poverty schools
received most of the Title I allocations to schools in 1997-98, and
their share of Title I funds was greater than their share of low-income
children. The highest-poverty schools were much more likely to receive
Title I funds than were low-poverty schools. However, low-poverty
schools that did receive Title I funds received substantially higher
allocations per low-income student than did high-poverty schools.

**The highest-poverty schools received 46 percent of Title I funds
allocated to schools in the 1997-98 school year -- greater than their
share of low-income students (33 percent).** Schools with poverty of
50 percent or more received 73 percent of Title I funds. Low-poverty
schools received 18 percent of the funds and accounted for 25 percent of
low-income students.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: **The highest-poverty schools (over 75 percent
> low-income students) receive 46 percent of Title I
> allocations---greater than their share of low-income students (33
> percent).**

**High-poverty schools are much more likely to receive Title I funds
than are low-poverty schools.** Nearly all (96 percent) of the
highest-poverty schools received Title I funds in 1997-98, compared with
only 28 percent of low-poverty schools.

**Although low-poverty schools were less likely to receive Title I
funds, those that did receive funding tended to receive substantially
larger allocations per low-income student (\$771) compared with**
![](media/image2.wmf)**the highest-poverty Title I schools (\$475) and
the average for all Title I schools (\$472).**

> Exhibit reads: **Title I allocations per low-income student were lower
> in the highest-poverty Title I schools (\$475) than in low-poverty
> Title I schools (\$771).**

**Secondary schools were less likely to receive Title I funds than
elementary schools, and secondary schools that did receive Title I funds
tended to receive smaller allocations than elementary schools (\$372 and
\$495 per low-income student, respectively).** As a result, the share of
Title I allocations going to secondary schools (15 percent) was
substantially less than their share of the nation's low-income students
(33 percent).

**The highest-poverty secondary schools, however, received allocations
that were comparable in size to those in the highest-poverty elementary
schools (\$446 and \$479 per low-income student, respectively).**
Moreover, changes made in the 1994 reauthorization resulted in a
dramatic increase in the proportion of the highest-poverty secondary
schools that receive Title I funds, from 61 percent in 1993-94 to
93 percent in 1997-98---about the same as the percentage of the
highest-poverty elementary schools that received Title I funds in
1997-98 (95 percent).

**The above school allocation data underestimate total school-level
spending for Title I, because 8 percent of Title I funds are used for
districtwide programs and services related to instruction and
instructional support---services that affect teachers and students in
schools throughout the district, rather than being used for resources
and services at the discretion of individual schools.** In addition,
because the allocation data are based on FY 1997 appropriations, the
average allocation amounts may seem low compared to current (FY 2000)
appropriations levels, which are 9 percent higher than in FY 1997. If
the school allocation estimates are adjusted to take both of these
factors into account, the average school funding level rises from \$472
to \$563 per low-income student for the 2000-2001 school year, and
ranges from \$567 in the highest-poverty schools to \$920 in the
lowest-poverty schools.

# School-level targeting for other federal programs

**For the other federal programs in this study, most districts used the
funds for services for all schools in the district or for all schools
(or teachers) that wanted to participate.** Districts did not usually
target these funds to schools with high concentrations of low‑income
students or low-achieving students. One‑fourth of
Goals 2000 coordinators reported that funds were targeted to schools
with low student achievement, but this practice was less common for
Title II (9 percent) and Title VI (4 percent). Some districts targeted
Title II and Title VI funds to schools identified for improvement under
Title I (14 percent of Title II districts and 11 percent of Title VI
districts). About one‑sixth (17 percent) of the districts targeted
Title VI funds to schools that received fewer resources from other
federal programs or other sources.

# Comparison of Title I with state compensatory education programs

**In states that had state compensatory education programs, Title I
funds per poor student exceeded state compensatory education funds by
more than one-third.** Comparisons between Title I and state
compensatory education programs are not straightforward due to ambiguity
over which states have programs that can be classified as state
compensatory education. However, according to two sets of data with
different sets of states of reporting state compensatory education
revenues, Title I provides about 35 percent to 40 percent more funds per
student than the state programs (in states that have such programs). The
difference between Title I and state programs in the level of funding
would likely be greater if states that do not have compensatory
education programs were taken into account.

The amount of funds provided through state compensatory education
programs varied considerably across states, and in three states exceeded
federal Title I funding. In some states, compensatory funds amounted to
more than \$1,000 per poor student, while other states provided less
than \$100 per poor student.

**On average, state compensatory education funds were somewhat less
targeted to high-poverty districts and schools than were Title I
funds.** Districts that were in the highest poverty quartile in their
state received between 49 and 52 percent of total state compensatory
funds, compared with a 54 to 55 percent share of Title I funds in those
states reporting state compensatory funds. However, this pattern varied
considerably across states, and the share received by the
highest-poverty districts ranged from a high of 97 percent (in
Minnesota) to a low of 21 percent (in Pennsylvania). At the school
level, schools with poverty rates of 50 percent or higher accounted for
52 percent of the schools receiving state compensatory education funds,
compared with 66 percent of Title I schools.

## Allocation of Federal Funds between the District and School Levels

Funds for the six programs in this study may be used at the school or
the district level for a variety of strategies for supporting teaching
and learning. For Title I, districts allocate a substantial share of the
resources to individual schools to permit them to design and implement
programs that meet the needs of their specific student populations. In
contrast, funds for the other five programs are primarily used for
districtwide programs and services related to instruction and
instructional support.

**For Title I, districts allocated 83 percent of the funds to individual
public schools and used an additional 1 percent for services for private
school students.** Districts used 8 percent of the funds to support
districtwide programs and services related to instruction and
instructional support, including teachers and support staff who serve
more than one school, districtwide preschool and summer school programs,
professional development, technology, and parent involvement programs.
District-level expenditures on program administration accounted for
8 percent of Title I funds.

**In contrast, most of the funds for Title II, Title IV, Title VI, and
Goals 2000 were used for services and resources to enhance instruction
and instructional support throughout the district, rather than being
allocated to individual schools.** This approach is not surprising,
because districts receive much smaller allocations from these programs
(e.g., an average of \$87,000 for Goals 2000 and \$18,000 for Title II)
than from Title I (\$521,000). While Title I funds may be of sufficient
magnitude to be used for employing teachers or aides within individual
schools, the smaller amounts of money that districts receive from these
other programs may be used more effectively by leveraging dollars from
other funding sources and supporting districtwide efforts to improve
teaching and learning through professional development, increased access
to technology, programs designed to reduce student violence and drug
abuse, implementing standards and aligned assessments, and other
strategies.

**Across all six programs, district-level expenditures on program
administration ranged from 4 to 9 percent of program funds.** These
funds primarily include salaries and benefits for district federal
program coordinators and administrative support staff, as well as
contributions to indirect costs.

## Comparability of State and Local Resources in Title I and Non-Title I Schools

The Title I statute requires that districts provide comparable levels of
state and local resources to their Title I schools as to their non-Title
I schools. This study takes a broader view of the comparability issue,
examining the comparability of non-Title I resources across Title I and
non-Title I schools nationally (not just within districts), as well as
across high- and low-poverty schools.

Across all schools, the base amount of non-Title I expenditures on
school staff was about the same in Title I and non-Title I schools
(\$3,664 and \$3,620 per pupil, respectively). At the elementary level,
Title I schools spent 5 percent less than non-Title I schools, while at
the secondary level, Title I schools spent 7 percent more.

![](media/image2.wmf) **At the elementary level, differences in the
comparability of personnel expenditure levels were greater between high-
and low-poverty schools than between Title I and non-Title I schools.**
Before Title I funds were added, Title I elementary schools had slightly
lower personnel expenditures (\$3,611 per pupil) than non-Title I
schools (\$3,807)---a 5 percent difference. The highest-poverty
elementary schools spent

7 percent less (\$3,556) than low-poverty elementary schools (\$3,822).
The difference is greatest when comparing high- and low-poverty
[Title I]{.underline} schools---the highest-poverty Title I schools had
10 percent less (\$3,553) than low-poverty Title I schools (\$3,942).

> Exhibit reads: **Before Title I funds were added, personnel
> expenditures in Title I elementary schools (\$3,611) were 5 percent
> lower than in non-Title I schools (\$3,807).**

Despite their lower spending on personnel, the highest-poverty
elementary schools had more teachers compared with low-poverty schools,
resulting in lower class sizes. However, teachers in the highest-poverty
schools earned lower salaries, had fewer years of experience, and were
less likely to hold an advanced degree. Teacher salaries were 14 percent
lower in the highest-poverty elementary schools (\$35,115) than in
low-poverty ![](media/image1.wmf)schools (\$40,839).

> Exhibit reads: **The highest-poverty schools had smaller average class
> sizes than low-poverty schools; however, teachers in the
> highest-poverty schools received lower average salaries.**

## Use of Title I Resources to Improve Educational Opportunities for At-Risk Students

Title I, Part A, the largest federal education program, provided \$7.1
billion in FY 1997 to support district and school efforts to help
disadvantaged children meet high standards. **Most Title I funds are
used for instruction, supporting the hiring of additional teachers and
instructional aides, providing instructional materials and computers,
and supporting other instructional services and resources.** Overall,
three-fourths (77 percent) of Title I funds were spent on instruction,
with an additional 12 percent used for instructional support and
12 percent used for program administration and indirect costs. Title I
spending on instruction amounted to an estimated \$5.5 billion for the
1997-98 school year, including \$3.3 billion spent on teachers
(47 percent of total Title I expenditures) and \$1.0 billion on
instructional aides (15 percent).

> ![](media/image1.wmf)
>
> Note: Total components may not add to totals due to rounding.
>
> Exhibit reads: **Title I spending on instruction amounted to \$5.473
> billion in the 1997-98 school year---77 percent of total Title I
> funds.**

**Comparing the above Title I expenditure data to school district
expenditure data collected by the National Center of Education
Statistics indicates that the share of funds used for instruction is
greater for Title I (77 percent) than for school district expenditures
overall (62 percent).** The share of funds used for instructional
support appears somewhat larger under Title I (12 percent) than for
district expenditures overall (9 percent), while the share used for
administration appears similar for Title I (12 percent) and district
expenditures overall (11 percent). The remaining school district
expenditures were used for building operation and maintenance (10
percent), transportation (4 percent), and food services (4 percent).

#  Schoolwide programs accounted for nearly half (45 percent) of Title I schools and an even higher share (60 percent) of the funds. More than four‑fifths (82 percent) of Title I schools that were eligible to operate schoolwide programs were doing so, and an additional 12 percent were considering doing so.

# 

# What Title I adds to school resource levels

**Overall, Title I provided an additional \$472 per low-income student
in Title I schools.** Title I allocations per low-income student were
substantially higher in low-poverty schools (\$771) than in
higher-poverty schools (\$475).

**Title I funds added 6 percent to total personnel expenditures in
Title I schools, or \$236 per student (total enrollment).** If the
Title I funds are calculated in terms of low-income students, then the
amount added by Title I equaled \$434 per low-income student---a
12 percent increase over the non-Title I base. In terms of funding per
Title I participant, the amount Title I added to school staffing
averaged \$412 per Title I participant---a 11 percent increase over the
base. (This analysis assumes that schools spend the same amount of
non-Title I resources on low-income students and Title I participants
that they spend on the average student.)

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: **The amount that Title I funds added to personnel
> expenditures amounted to \$236 per pupil (a 6 percent increase),
> \$434 per low-income student (a 12 percent increase), and \$412 per
> Title I participant (a 11 percent increase).**

**In terms of total school personnel expenditures, Title I funds added
more resources in the highest-poverty Title I schools than in
low-poverty Title I schools.** The increase in total personnel
expenditures that resulted from Title I funds was 10 percent in the
highest-poverty elementary schools (\$355 per pupil), compared with
6 percent in low-poverty elementary schools (\$247 per pupil).

**However, in terms of funding per low-income student, the story was
reversed: Title I resources caused a much greater addition to funding
per low-income student in low-poverty Title I schools.** The amount that
Title I added to personnel expenditures resulted in 26 percent higher
personnel expenditures per low‑income student in low-poverty elementary
schools (\$1,035), compared with a 12 percent increase in the
highest-poverty elementary schools (\$415 per pupil).

> Exhibit reads: **Title I funds added more to expenditures per pupil in
> the highest-poverty elementary schools (a 10 percent increase) than in
> low-poverty schools (6 percent). However, low-poverty Title I schools
> experienced a greater increase in expenditures per low‑income student
> (26 percent) and per Title I participant (27 percent).**

**Similarly, the amount that Title I added per Title I participant was
much higher in the low‑poverty Title I schools (27 percent) than in the
highest-poverty Title I schools (11 percent).** Most of the
highest‑poverty schools use Title I funds for schoolwide programs, in
which all students are counted as Title I participants, while
low-poverty schools use Title I funds for targeted assistance programs
that serve only the lowest-achieving students.

**The total number of full-time staff added to a typical-size Title I
elementary school with 500 students amounted to 4.4 additional full-time
equivalent (FTE) staff, including 2.1 FTE additional teachers, 1.9 FTE
additional teacher aides, and 0.5 FTE additional noninstructional
staff.** In secondary Title I schools, using the same standardized
enrollment level of 500 students, Title I added a smaller number of FTE
staff (1.9), consisting of 0.6 FTE teachers, 0.7 FTE teacher aides, and
0.6 FTE noninstructional staff.

# 

# Use of Title I funds for teachers and teacher aides

![](media/image1.wmf) **Teacher aides accounted for half of
Title I-funded instructional staff, although they accounted for only
15 percent of total Title I expenditures and 24 percent of spending on
instructional staff.** The average annual salary for an FTE teacher aide
(\$12,627) is about 35 percent of the average salary for a Title I
teacher (\$36,427).

> Exhibit reads: **Teachers account for about half of Title I
> instructional staff but 76 percent of spending on instructional
> staff.**

**Paraprofessionals were used in many Title I schools for teaching and
helping to teach students, although their educational backgrounds did
not qualify many of them for such responsibilities.** Title I teacher
aides reported that 60 percent of their time, on average, was spent on
teaching or helping to teach students. Moreover, 41 percent of Title I
teacher aides reported that half or more of the time they spent teaching
or helping to teach students was on their own, without a teacher
present, and 76 percent spent at least some time teaching without a
teacher present. Although 99 percent of Title I teacher aides had a high
school diploma or a GED, only 25 percent (and 10 percent in the
highest‑poverty schools) had a bachelor\'s degree.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: **Forty-one percent of Title I teacher aides in Title I
> elementary schools spent half or more of their time teaching or
> helping to teach students without a teacher present.**

**Title I teachers spent two-thirds of their time working with
students.** Title I teachers reported that they spent 66 percent of
their time in instructional activities. This instructional time was
primarily spent in resource rooms (i.e., pullout) and departmentalized
classes, which accounted for 49 percent of their time. Title I teachers
spent 14 percent of their time teaching students in in-class settings,
and another 3 percent on informal tutoring. The remaining time was used
for planning, preparation, and grading (19 percent of total time);
consulting with other staff (6 percent); interacting with parents
(3 percent); and administrative duties (6 percent).

## Preschool and Extended Learning Time Programs

Districts and schools often seek to increase instructional time for
students---particularly at-risk students---through preschool programs
that help prepare students for their subsequent schooling experiences;
programs that provide additional instructional time during the regular
school year (before school, after school, and on the weekends); and
summer school programs that provide additional instruction outside of
the normal school year.

**Preschool programs were offered in one-third (32 percent) of all
elementary schools and enrolled 9 percent of the estimated preschool-age
population.** Preschool programs were much more prevalent in the
highest-poverty schools (61 percent) than in low-poverty schools
(14 percent) and also served a higher proportion of the preschool-age
population in the highest-poverty schools (24 percent, compared with
3 percent in the low-poverty schools).

**Two-thirds of all schools offered extended-time instructional or
tutorial programs during the school year through before-school,
after-school, or weekend programs.** Secondary schools were more likely
to offer extended time programs (79 percent) than elementary schools
(54 percent). High-poverty schools were also more likely to provide
extended-time programs (74 percent of the highest-poverty elementary
schools, compared with 36 percent of low-poverty elementary schools).
Similarly, extended-time programs were offered in 74 percent of
elementary schools with Title I schoolwide programs, compared with
50 percent of elementary targeted assistance schools and 38 percent of
non-Title I elementary schools. One-fourth (23 percent) of Title I
targeted assistance schools reported that their use of extended-time
programs had increased since the 1993-94 school year.

**High-poverty schools were more likely than low-poverty schools to
offer extended-time instructional programs, and this difference was
particularly pronounced at the elementary school level.** Three-fourths
(74 percent) of the highest-poverty elementary schools offered
extended-time programs, compared with only 36 percent of lowest-poverty
elementary schools.

**After-school instructional programs were more widely used than
before-school or weekend programs for instruction during the school
year.** At the elementary level, 48 percent of schools offered
after-school programs, 15 percent offered before-school programs, and
2 percent offered weekend programs. Among secondary schools, 73 percent
offered after-school programs, 34 percent offered before-school
programs, and 14 percent offered weekend programs.

**Extended‑time instructional programs served a relatively
small percentage of students: 11 percent of the students in schools
offering extended-time programs and 7 percent of students in all
schools.** However, the percentage of students served was higher in the
highest-poverty schools (14 percent of all students in these schools).
Extended‑time instructional programs added an average of 116 hours of
additional instructional time during the school year---about a
10 percent increase in instructional time for
![](media/image2.wmf)participating students.

> Exhibit reads: **Nearly two-thirds of all schools (63 percent) offered
> before-school, after-school, or weekend instructional programs, but
> these programs served only 7 percent of all students.**

**Summer school programs were offered in 56 percent of all schools and
served somewhat higher percentages of the students (14 percent),
compared with extended-time programs during the school year
(7 percent).** Secondary schools were more likely to offer summer school
(66 percent) than were elementary schools (51 percent). At the
elementary level, summer programs were more prevalent in the
highest-poverty schools and in Title I schools.

## Improving the Skills and Knowledge of Teachers

**Five ESEA programs and Goals 2000 provided an estimated \$785 million
for the 1997-98 school year to support professional development to
improve the skills of teachers and other staff.** The Title II
Eisenhower Program provided a total of \$294 million through
elementary/secondary grants to school districts (\$244 million) and
grants to institutions of higher education (\$50 million). Title I
expenditures on professional development at the district and school
levels amounted to \$212 million, and Goals 2000 expenditures amounted
to \$189 million. Districts also used Title VI (\$45 million) and
Title IV (\$45 million) for professional development activities.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: **District and school spending on professional
> development from Title I funds amounted to \$212 million in the
> 1997-98 school year---27 percent of total support for professional
> development from the programs in this study.**
>
> Note: Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are included in this
> exhibit in order to provide a more complete picture of federal funds
> available for technology, although this program is not otherwise
> included in this study.

**Few districts were able to provide information on their total spending
on professional development.** In the 19 districts that did provide this
information, federal programs provided 28 percent of total funds used
for professional development. State categorical programs also provided
substantial support for professional development in these districts
(21 percent); most of the remaining funds came from the district's
general fund (47 percent).

**Topics of professional development supported by federal programs were
generally aligned with the purpose of the programs.** Professional
development focused on curriculum or instruction specific to reading or
language arts was the highest priority for Title I directors. Goals 2000
funds predominantly supported activities related to content or
performance standards, enabling students to meet proficiency standards,
and assessments linked to standards. Title II funds were most often used
for activities focused on math and science curriculum and instruction,
followed by content and performance standards.

**Teachers participated in professional development activities focused
on specific content areas such as mathematics or reading more than any
other topic.** Classroom teachers reported participating in 13 hours of
professional development on this topic in the 1997-98 school year (23
hours for teachers in the highest-poverty schools). Other activities
included parent or community involvement (7 hours), teaching
academically, ethnically, or linguistically diverse learners (7 hours),
integrating technology into instruction (6 hours), developing teachers
skills in using technology (5 hours), and content or performance
standards (5 hours).

**Workshops, conferences, and institutes were the most prevalent type of
professional development activity.** Teachers were far more likely to
attend workshops, conferences, or institutes than participate in any
other professional development activity, and nearly all schools and
districts reported supporting teachers' attendance at these activities.

**Many teachers also reported some participation in less traditional and
more collaborative forms of professional development.** Teachers spent
an average of 25 hours on planning lessons or courses with other
teachers, 8 hours on developing curriculum, 7 hours on developing
content standards or student assessments, and 3 hours observing other
teachers in their classrooms. While many schools and districts reported
supporting teacher involvement in collaborative work, few teachers
reported receiving release time to participate in these activities.

**Districts varied in how they made decisions about the use of
professional development funds in general and Title II funds in
particular.** District curriculum administrators were primary
decisionmakers about the use of all professional development and
Title II funds in more than half of the districts (55 percent and
54 percent, respectively), while Title II coordinators were primary
decisionmakers in just under half of the districts (45 percent and
46 percent, respectively). Districts most often cited student
performance data and assessment of teacher needs as factors that were
extremely influential in making decisions about the use of these funds.

## Increasing Access to Technology

**Four ESEA programs and Goals 2000 provided funding for increased
access to technology in school districts and schools that amounted to an
estimated \$688 million for the 1997-98 school year.** Two programs
focused on education technology, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
and Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, provided \$244 million
(35 percent of the total amount provided through these five programs).
District and school spending on technology from Title I amounted to
\$287 million, more than the funds provided through the two
technology-focused programs. Significant support for education
technology also came from Goals 2000 (\$85 million) and Title VI (\$72
million).

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: **District and school spending on technology from Title
> I funds amounted to \$287 million in the 1997-98 school year---more
> than the funds provided through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
> and Technology Innovation Challenge Grants.**
>
> Note: Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are included in this
> exhibit in order to provide a more complete picture of federal funds
> available for technology, although this program is not otherwise
> included in this study.

**Districts used technology funds primarily to purchase computers and
provide professional development related to using technology.** Most
districts reported using these funds "a great deal" to increase
teachers' and students' access to computers (84 and 83 percent of
districts, respectively), to develop teachers' skills in using
technology (75 percent), to integrate technology into classroom
instruction (72 percent), and to increase students' access to the
Internet (71 percent).

**Federal funds paid for one-fourth (24 percent) of the new computers
that schools received during the 1997-98 school year, and half of these
were purchased with Title I funds (13 percent).** State and local funds
paid for two-thirds (66 percent) of the new computers, and private
sources (which may include parent-teacher associations, businesses, and
foundations) provided 10 percent of the new computers. In elementary
schools, federal funds were even more significant, paying for 34 percent
of the new computers (with 21 percent purchased with Title I funds).

**Federal funds were a much more significant source of support for new
computers in high-poverty schools.** In the highest-poverty elementary
schools, Title I funds alone paid for 33 percent of the new computers
and federal funds from all sources paid for 58 percent of the new
computers. In contrast, low-poverty elementary schools received a
relatively small proportion of their new computers either from Title I
(5 percent) or from federal funds overall (10 percent).

> ![](media/image3.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: **In the highest-poverty elementary schools, Title I
> and other federal funds paid for 58 percent of the new computers
> received in 1997-98, compared with 34 percent of the new computers in
> elementary schools overall.**

**In the 1997-98 school year, the highest-poverty schools received more
new computers than did low-poverty schools.** In a typical-size
elementary school of 500 students, the highest-poverty schools received
13.7 new computers, compared to 9.1 new computers in low-poverty
schools. The highest-poverty schools received fewer new computers from
state and local funds and private sources but more from Title I and
other federal funds.

**Overall, however, high-poverty schools had less access to technology
than low-poverty schools in terms of the quantity, quality, and
connectivity of computers.** The highest-poverty schools had only one
computer for every 17 students, while low-poverty schools had one
computer for every 12 students. Computers in the highest-poverty
elementary schools were less likely to be more advanced multimedia
computers (40 percent of computers, vs. 52 percent in low-poverty
schools) or to be connected to the Internet (22 percent vs. 34 percent).

**Most teachers reported that their lessons required students to use
computers, but relatively few incorporated use of computers on a daily
basis** (28 percent of elementary classroom teachers and 8 percent of
secondary classroom teachers).

**Teachers typically did not integrate use of the Internet into
instructional activities.** About 62 percent of elementary and
71 percent of secondary classroom teachers reported that their lessons
"never" or "hardly ever" required students to use the Internet.

**A major barrier to effective use of technology was insufficient
teacher understanding of ways to integrate technology into the
curriculum,** according to 70 percent of school principals and
45 percent of classroom teachers. However, teachers were more likely to
express concern about an insufficient number of computers, lack of
software integrated with the school's curriculum, and insufficient
technical support. To address the knowledge barrier, more than
91 percent of districts indicated that professional development had
focused "a great deal" on developing teachers' skills in using
technology.

## Standards-Based Reform and the Goals 2000 Program

**The Goals 2000 program provided \$476 million in FY 1997 funds to
promote systemic educational reform, primarily by supporting the
development and implementation of state and district content and student
performance standards.** Districts sometimes targeted Goals 2000 funds
to schools with low student achievement (23 percent), but more often
used the funds to serve all schools in the district (35 percent) or all
schools or teachers who wished to participate (39 percent).

![](media/image2.wmf) **Districts most commonly used Goals 2000 funds to
improve teachers' ability to teach to high standards.** Most districts
(89 percent) used Goals 2000 funds "a great deal" to provide
professional development linked to standards. About three-quarters of
the districts used the funds "a great deal" for aligning curriculum and
instruction with standards (76 percent) or for developing assessments
linked to standards (70 percent).

> Exhibit reads: **Eighty-nine percent of districts reported using Goals
> 2000 funds "a great deal" for professional development linked to
> standards.**

**Professional development supported with Goals 2000 funds most commonly
addressed state or district content or performance standards and
enabling students to meet state or district proficiency
standards---**each topic supported "a great deal" by 71 percent of
districts. Other topics frequently supported include assessments linked
to standards (46 percent), curriculum and instruction specific to
reading or language arts (40 percent), and teaching academically,
ethnically, or linguistically diverse learners (39 percent).

**Goals 2000 administrators and district curriculum and instructional
administrators were the primary decisionmakers about the allocation and
use of Goals 2000 funds.** Nonetheless, decisions were made
collaboratively: almost half of district Goals 2000 coordinators
(44 percent) reported that decisions about the use of funds were made
jointly by districts and schools, while almost one-third of the
districts (29 percent) reported making decisions at the district level
but with input from schools.

**Almost three-quarters of districts (71 percent) reported that the
long-term district plan was "extremely influential" in making decisions
about the use of Goals 2000 funds.** More than half of the districts
(56 percent) reported that student performance data was "extremely
influential" in making decisions about the use of Goals 2000 funds.

## Title VI - Innovative Education Program Strategies

**The Title VI program provided \$310 million in FY 1997 to support
local innovative educational strategies.** Resources and services were
widely distributed to schools within each district and were generally
not targeted to schools based on poverty or student achievement.
Forty-three percent of districts provided resources or services to all
schools in the district and another quarter provided these resources to
all schools or teachers wishing to participate in the program.

**Title VI funds were most often used to acquire educational materials,
including library materials and software.** Fifty-eight percent of
districts used funds "a great deal" for this purpose, followed by
expanding the use of technology (39 percent) and providing supplemental
targeted academic services (34 percent).

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: **Fifty-eight percent of districts reported using
> Title VI funds "a great deal" for acquiring educational materials.**

**Title VI funds were less likely than Goals 2000 or Title I funds to be
used for activities related to implementing standards**, such as
aligning curriculum and instructional materials with standards
(13 percent) or professional development linked to standards
(13 percent).

**Larger districts were more likely to use Title VI funds for
professional development activities than were smaller districts.**
Although only 13 percent of all Title VI districts reported using funds
for professional development, these districts enrolled 33 percent of all
students. The most commonly supported topics were district or state
performance standards, enabling students to meet state or district
proficiency standards, building partnerships with parents and community,
and reading/language arts curriculum or instruction.

**When making decisions about how to use Title VI funds, districts were
more likely to be influenced by long-term district plans (52 percent)
and priorities of individual schools (52 percent) than by state policies
(21 percent).** About a quarter of districts cited student performance
data (28 percent) and research showing that particular program models
work well (24 percent) as factors that were "extremely influential" in
making decisions about the use of Title VI funds.

## Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

**Title IV, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program,
provided \$425 million in FY 1997 to support school districts' efforts
to prevent violence and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs in and
around schools.** In addition, Title IV funds administered by governors'
offices provided an additional \$106 million to serve children and youth
not normally served by school districts and populations that need
special services (such as runaway or homeless children, dropouts, teen
parents, and youths in detention facilities); these funds are not
primarily granted to school districts and thus were not included in this
study.

**The clear priority for districts was to use Title IV funds for
strategies that affected student attitudes.** Most districts
(83 percent) reported using funds "a great deal" to affect student
attitudes related to drugs or violence. Districts also used Title IV
funds to strengthen school communities through improving staff knowledge
and skills (47 percent) and through building partnerships with parents
and the community (26 percent of districts, enrolling 44 percent of
students). Given the statute's 20 percent cap on the amount that
districts may use for security hardware and personnel, it is not
surprising that few districts (4 percent) used funds "a great deal" to
improve school security.

> ![](media/image2.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: **Eighty-three percent of districts reported using
> Title IV funds "a great deal" for affecting student attitudes related
> to drug use or violence.**

**Title IV funds were used widely to support professional development
activities.** About half of the districts (53 percent) used these funds
for professional development activities focused "a great deal" on
preventing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use and violence among
students. A quarter of the districts (enrolling 40 percent of all
students) used Title IV funds for professional development focused
"a great deal" on building partnerships with parents and communities.

**Title IV funds also supported student participation in drug and
violence prevention efforts.** Three-fourths of districts (74 percent)
used Title IV funds to enable students to attend specialized training in
drug and violence prevention. Many districts also used these funds to
teach students how to serve as instructors or peer leaders in
school-based projects related to drug and violence prevention
(57 percent) or to support student participation in school committees,
panels, or councils (48 percent).

**Long-term district plans were most often reported as being "extremely
influential" in making such decisions about the use of Title IV funds.**
Half of the districts (52 percent) reported being "extremely influenced"
in their decisionmaking by rates of alcohol and drug-use among
school-age children, while 41 percent reported incidences of violence
and crime in schools as a factor.

[^1]: The sample of 180 school districts was drawn from a previous
    sample of more than 3,000 districts used for another Department of
    Education study, the District Implementation Study, which excluded
    districts with fewer than 300 students (Hannaway and Kimball (1997),
    Reports on Reform from the Field, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education). As a result, the estimates for the Study of Education
    Resources and Federal Funding are generalizable to the population of
    districts that have 300 or more students. Districts with fewer than
    300 students account for a relatively large proportion of all
    districts (21 percent) but a very small proportion of students (less
    than 1 percent) (National Center for Education Statistics (2000),
    Digest of Education Statistics: 1999, Table 91).