U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–478 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–46

TITLE I PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SPECIAL HEARING

APRIL 20, 2001—JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director 

JAMES H. ENGLISH, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND

EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

(Ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

BETTILOU TAYLOR

MARY DIETRICH

JIM SOURWINE

ELLEN MURRAY (Minority)

Administrative Support 

CORREY DIVINEY

CAROLE GEAGLEY (Minority) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Opening statement of Senator Thad Cochran ....................................................... 1

Statement of Dr. Richard Thompson, State Superintendent of Education, 

Mississippi Department of Education ................................................................ 2

Statement of Dr. Lynn House, bureau director, Office of Innovative Support, 

Mississippi Department of Education ................................................................ 4

Statement of Joyce B. McNair, superintendent, Humphreys County School 

District .................................................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Statement of Dr. Therrell Myers, superintendent, Columbus Municipal School 

District .................................................................................................................. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Statement of Dr. Daniel Watkins, superintendent, Yazoo City Municipal 

School District ...................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement of the Office of Research and Statistics, Mississippi Department of Education ......................................................................................... 21

(1)

TITLE I PROGRAM 

FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2001 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Jackson, MS. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in the auditorium of the Central High School Building, Mississippi Department of Education, 

Hon. Thad Cochran presiding. 

Present: Senator Cochran. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Good morning. It’s a pleasure for me to convene and welcome you to this hearing of the United States Senate 

Committee on Appropriations. The subcommittee on Labor, Health 

and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies is chaired by 

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has authorized me to 

chair this hearing. This is the second hearing of the subcommittee 

we’ve had in Mississippi this week. The first, in Bay Saint Louis, 

examined the effectiveness of the National Writing Project in Mississippi schools, particularly schools on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. 

We appreciate very much the assistance of Dr. Richard Thompson, superintendent of Mississippi Department of Education, and 

Dr. Susan Rucker, associate superintendent, and their staff members in preparation for this hearing and for allowing us to use this 

auditorium. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the Title I Grants to 

LEAs (Title I) Program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I is the largest Federal education program for elementary and secondary schools. It was enacted as part of the first 

comprehensive Federal education program in 1965. Since then, 

nearly $133 billion have been made available to States and school 

districts to improve opportunities for a good education of disadvantaged students. In the first year, Mississippi schools received about $24 million 

from the Title I program. Last year, our State’s share amounted to 

about $126 million. Out of the student population in Mississippi’s 

public schools of about 500,000, about 150,000 are Title I eligible 

students. Most of the schools in Mississippi receive Title I funds. 

This hearing provides the United States Senate with an opportunity to learn more about the Title I Program and how it is working in Mississippi. We’re very pleased to have such a distinguished 

panel of witnesses today to discuss this with me, and I’m looking 
2

forward to their testimony. Each witness has provided the subcommittee with written testimony, which we make a part of the 

hearing record. We also have written materials furnished to the 

committee and presented to me this morning by the State Department of Education about the Title I Program, and that will be 

made a part of the hearing record, as well. I invite the witnesses 

to make whatever comments, verbal testimony available to the 

committee that you think will assist us in understanding the issues 

before us. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The material submitted is being retained in the 

Subcommittee files.] 

Senator COCHRAN. Panel 1: Dr. Richard Thompson, State Superintendent of Education, Mississippi Department of Education; Dr. 

Lynn House, Bureau Director, Office of Innovative Support, Mississippi Department of Education; Ms. Joyce B. McNair, Superintendent, Humphreys County School District; Dr. Therrell Myers, 

Superintendent, Columbus Municipal School District; Dr. Daniel 

Watkins, Superintendent, Yazoo City Municipal School District. 

Dr. Richard Thompson is the State superintendent of education 

for Mississippi. He earned his Doctorate of Education and Master’s 

Degree from the University of North Carolina. Dr. Lynn House is 

the director of the Office of Innovative Support of the Mississippi 

Department of Education and administers the Title I Program in 

Mississippi. Dr. House has 26 years of experience as an educator. 

She’s been a principal, teacher and a teacher educator. She holds 

a Ph.D from the University of Mississippi, a Master’s Degree from 

Firmin University and a Bachelor’s Degree from the University of 

New Orleans. Ms. Joyce McNair is the superintendent of the Humphreys County School District. She attended Humphreys County 

schools before earning her Bachelor’s Degree at Tulane College and 

her Master’s Degree from Delta State University. Ms. McNair is 

currently enrolled in a doctoral program at Delta State. She has 31 

years of experience as a public educator. Dr. Therrell Myers is superintendent of the Columbus Municipal School District. He’s been 

an educator for 27 years. He previously served as associate superintendent at the Mississippi Department of Education. He has a 

Ph.D from Mississippi State University. Dr. Daniel Watkins is the 

superintendent of the Yazoo City School District. He earned his 

Bachelor’s, Master’s and Ph.D in educational specialties at Jackson 

State University. 

I welcome you all to our hearing and invite you to proceed. Dr. 

Thompson, we’ll start with you. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD THOMPSON, STATE SUPERINTENDENT 

OF EDUCATION, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Dr. THOMPSON. Senator Cochran, thank you so much for being 

here and conducting this hearing, and we really appreciate the opportunity to present. As you have indicated, I have some literal information in support of our strong opinion of the value of Title I 

in the schools for the children in Mississippi. 

My comments this morning will be not repetitious of the ones 

that I had submitted necessarily in writing, but I do want to try 

to make significant that since 1985, we believe that Mississippi has 

made more progress than any other State in the Nation in edu-
3

cation. And one of the unfortunate things is that we were so far 

behind. In fact, a former governor of the State once said that, in 

1954, in the history of our State, only 1 in 4 white children will 

graduate from high school in Mississippi. At that same time, in the 

history of our State, 1 in 40 black children will graduate from high 

school. 

To have the tremendous improvement we’ve had has only been 

made possible through the additional resources by this title. We 

were so pleased just last April 9th, just a few days ago, when a 

major press release was released by the name of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Report, that stated that Mississippi is one of 4 States in the Nation that had made the most 

progress with their bottom children and also their top children and 

had improved on more indicators than any other State, with the exception of Connecticut, Kentucky and North Carolina. So we felt 

very good about that. 

Well, again, I would point out that it is the infusion of those dollars, such as Title I, that have allowed us to make this progress. 

And we continue to have great need, because, as you know, 65 percent of the children in Mississippi that are in public schools are on 

free or reduced lunch. And we know the poverty standard that’s applied to Title I, and Title I allocation is different, and it only reflects 27 percent of our children in poverty. And it is somewhat 

conflicted, but we know that that standard does create some problems for us, because we believe that many of our children are actually in poverty that may not be reflected by that particular statistic. 

There is no question that as we move into our new accountability 

system, that Title I funds will be more important than, perhaps, 

they have ever been. Our State struggles with the need to provide 

quality pre-kindergarten programs for our youngsters. And at this 

point, there is not a single State dollar that goes into that program. 

The brain research that’s being developed indicates that one of the 

most significant things you could do for our children is to provide 

a quality program of pre-kindergarten. And the data is overwhelming. One research has indicated it may be as much as a 16.5 

differential, based on that kind of experience. So what is happening 

is 61 of our locations have chosen to use Title I dollars to help with 

that significant problem, and it is making a difference. 

In addition to that, we, in our new accountability system, are 

holding everyone accountable, teachers, principals, superintendents, school board members and, yes, students for improvement 

standards and increasing achievement. One of the things we know 

we must do is we must view this, not as a punitive measure, but 

a measure of diagnosing the needs of children early on and providing the kind of resources that help intervention, if you will, to 

meet those needs so these children can achieve and have an opportunity to the quality of life as any other child in America would 

have. And many of our districts have only this pot of money to look 

to provide that additional help, perhaps an after-school program, 

perhaps an early childhood program, for some of our youngsters at 

the high school level, even, the only remediation our districts can 

reach is Title I. 
4

Again, Senator, we’re so grateful to you for your leadership and 

what you’re doing for our State, and we stand ready to assist you 

and your committee any way that we can. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Thompson. We’ll 

now turn to Dr. Lynn House. Welcome. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LYNN HOUSE, BUREAU DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INNOVATIVE SUPPORT, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Dr. HOUSE. Thank you so much, Senator Cochran and thanks to 

your staff for helping us get everything organized for today and 

special thanks to the superintendents here today who will also be 

testifying. 

First of all, I would like to emphasize the fact that the 152 school 

districts in our State all receive Title I funds. Every one of these 

districts spend literally months and many hours in the planning 

process, so that every single cent of that money is spent wisely. In 

fact, they’re in the process now of completing their consolidated application that will be the fruit to bear from all that planning. 

I also would like to say that we have received our preliminary 

allocation from the USDE. That preliminary allocation indicates 

that we will take a two to three percent cut in our funding for the 

coming year. When we reflect on what that means to our children 

and our district, this is the kind of scene that we predict: First of 

all, we believe that at least 6,500 students will no longer receive 

Title I services. We also believe that a minimum of 75 teachers will 

no longer be there to provide the instructional support that those 

Title I children need. 

You heard Dr. Thompson mention the importance of pre-K programs. We really have emphasized to our districts how vital that 

aspect of Title I is. We believe that we will not only see districts 

failing to implement pre-K programs with Title I dollars, we’re 

really concerned that some of those that are currently in existence 

will be cut. We also believe very strongly that extended days, extended year programs that are funded through Title I are providing 

that additional instructional time that so many youngsters need to 

be successful academically. Those programs will also suffer. Professional development is another area that we believe will be cut with 

this funding reduction. Professional development is the way we 

help our teachers grow in their profession, so that they, indeed, can 

truly meet the needs of these youngsters who are at risk. Parent 

centers and parent activities, we believe, will also be impacted negatively by these cuts. We know the importance of involving parents 

in the education of their children. Those activities are, of course, 

required by Title I and will continue in some degree, but we also 

believe that some of the innovations will be cut with this funding 

loss. 

And lastly, I’d like to say that from the State perspective, we do 

a lot in trying to provide technical assistance to our districts. We 

believe we are a service agency, not just a regulatory agency. So 

we’re in the district every year helping them with the planning 

process and doing some problem solving with them to help them 

understand how best to go about meeting the needs of their children through their Title I funding. We believe that because of the 
5

cut, we, too, will have to cut back on providing those services in 

some form or fashion. 

I’d like to close by just reading to you what Hilton Miller said 

about Title I. You might not know Hilton Miller, but he’s one of our 

2000 distinguished graduates for our Title I recognition program 

sponsored by the USDE. Hilton Miller said this: On this ladder 

that society calls life, I have come to realize that one step does not 

lead to another, it is the individual who decides whether or not to 

continue to climb, and if so, which step he or she must conquer. 

The Title I program helped me make my climb. Now, Hilton Miller, 

who was very recently the vice president of the University of Mississippi Law School student body is now a practicing attorney. He 

credited his success in many ways to the Title I program and what 

that program was able to do for him. His story is just one of thousands. 

We know we’re impacting our children positively, and with the 

loss of funding, we know that impact will be lessened. So we would 

certainly request that you do everything you can, as we know you 

will, to help Mississippi receive its fair share of funding so that we, 

too, can continue to impact students like Hilton Miller. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Dr. House. Let’s now 

turn to Ms. Joyce McNair. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOYCE B. McNAIR, SUPERINTENDENT, HUMPHREYS 

COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Ms. MCNAIR. Good morning. It’s an honor to be here, and we 

thank you for coming to our State. And I would like to share with 

you, I am from Humphreys County, the Mississippi Delta. We are 

a rural community. Forty-five percent of the students in my district 

live in poverty. Seventy-five percent of those students come from 

single parent homes. Our district serves approximately 2,300 children from pre-K to 12. We were once a thriving farming community. We have very little industry. Our farms are disappearing, and 

our children are suffering because of the economics in our community. But it has been through the efforts of our Title I funds that 

we have been able to provide services to our children and our families, as well as our staff in enabling them to reach and teach those 

children. 

We have, in our community, because of the educational level, 50-

something percent of our population that’s 25 or older who do not 

have high school degrees. Of our community, 12 percent have graduated from college or have higher degrees. So when our children 

come into our school districts because of this environment, they 

come language delayed, but through the efforts of Title I, our students are able to achieve and overcome this barrier because of the 

programs in our district that we use our Title I funds for. 

Our reading initiative is one that I would like to share with you 

that we are doing with our Title I funds. If these are cut, it will 

have a devastating effect on our students served by our reading initiative. It is a statewide reading initiative, but for us, it is a crucial 

initiative, because we know the children cannot read, and they’re 

not going to be successful. We use those funds in our reading initiative to diagnose children. We use an analytical reading inventory, 

and from this inventory, we are able to do prescriptive interven-
6

tion. And this is where our Title I teachers come in. They actually 

work with the students on their weaknesses and strengths. We prescribe and we help each other as teachers in our district to come 

up with intervention strategies that will work for these students. 

And this happens in our early grades, because if we do not start 

early, then they will not be successful in school. Not only do we use 

it with our reading initiative, but it enables us to hire extra teachers to reduce our class size, enable us to provide a lot of one-onone attention that our children need. 

Many of our children, to share something else about our district, 

our children, the majority of them, we have students that ride as 

long as 45 minutes, one way, to school. And these are kindergartners that may be doing that. So when they arrive at school, we 

have to be there to provide them with all the necessary equipment 

and resources to enable them to have a good education. 

We also use our Title I funds to offset, to work with our parents. 

We have a parent center, and in this parent center, we have liaisons that go out into our homes and work with our parents. We 

have found that, in our community, it is very difficult to get parents to come to the school. And through Title I, we’re bridging that 

gap, we’re seeing them become more involved, because we’re sending our parent center people out to the homes, to their workplaces, 

and they’re meeting with them. Our community businesses have 

been very good to us about letting us come into their businesses 

and meet with our parents, so we can share progress reports or any 

other information that they may need about school. Not only will 

the parent center do these things, but that parent center provides 

training for our parents, teaching them how to help with their children, how to be parents, parenting skills, how to help with homework. And we’re also training them to be educators, because they 

are their children’s first teachers. 

We have used those funds over the years to—not only do we care 

about our underachieving students, but we do have some very 

bright children in our district. And to address those needs, we’ve 

taken our Title I funds to host a Saturday academy. And we 

brought in teachers from Mississippi schools of math and science 

to work with our students, these are eighth and ninth graders, 

also, and train our teachers in mathematics and science. Our parents were a part of this program, they came on Saturday also. And 

believe it or not, we targeted 40 students, and every Saturday, we 

had 40 students plus parents there, because there was an educational need. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

And lastly but not least, I would like to say that, without these 

funds, districts like mine, well, the impact would be tremendous. 

And we use our dollars wisely to meet the needs of all of our children, because our children are our most precious resource. And in 

our district, we believe truly that the children of Humphreys County should be afforded every educational opportunity as children 

anywhere in America. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]
7

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOYCE B. MCNAIR

I am superintendent of the Humphreys County School District which serves approximately 2300 students from Pre-K to 12. We are the only public school in the 

county which is located in Belzoni, MS (the Heart of the MS Delta). The majority 

of our students are bused with many of them traveling at least 45 minutes one way 

to school. Our school is located in a county that is rural, agrarian, with a population 

of approximately 11,000. A county that was once a thriving farming community, but 

in recent years we have seen many farms disappear, industry leave, and many of 

our best and brightest minds leave our community due to the lack of jobs. Humphreys County has a high incidence of poverty 96 percent of our students qualify 

for free and reduced lunch, 75 percent come from single parent families, and 45 percent of our county live in poverty. The educational level of our community is low53 percent of the population age 25 and above did not graduate from high school, 

while approximately 12 percent of the population have college degrees or higher. 

From these statistics you can see that the majority of our students are at-risk educationally, culturally, and economically. 

The data reflects that our children live in an environment that is educationally 

and economically deprived. Also from experience in working with the students and 

parents as a teacher, school administrator, and now superintendent, I know that our 

children face many economic and educational challenges. Because of their environment many of our students enter school language delayed, and lack the proper early 

literacy skills necessary to be successful in school. The lack of these skills tend to 

keep our student behind, and constantly struggling to catch up and maintain. But 

with the proper assessment and interventions in the teaching and learning process 

due to Title I we are able to overcome many of these barriers. It is through our Title 

I dollars that we provide our staff with high quality, on-going professional development, purchase supplies/materials and equipment needed to enhance the learning 

environment, hire teachers to reduce teacher/pupil ratio and support staff (Assistant 

Teachers) to provide extra intervention/prevention for the students. 

However, despite these statistics our school system has grown. Our students have 

some of the best and brightest minds of students anywhere in this state or country. 

Title I funds have aided the Humphreys County School District in its quest to provided services for our students and their parents, and staff. It has been the mainstay of support to help us improve teaching and learning, and increase literacy 

among our parents. We have used Title I funds to provide early literacy training 

for our Pre-K program, Headstart and other day care providers; provide teachers 

training on intervention/prevention strategies, and learning styles to increase student achievement; and expose our staff to best practices and reform models for 

school improvement; establish parent centers to provide training for our parents in 

areas such as parenting skills, early literacy intervention, and technology. Also 

funds are used to hire home-school liaisons to keep parents informed of the academic progress of their children, attendance, and any other pertinent information 

parents need to help their children and stay informed of school events and activities. 

We know that parent involvement is crucial in the education of a child, especially 

if we are to see increases in student achievement. 

Funds also are used to provide after school tutorial to meet the needs of students 

who are low achievers or students who have fallen through the cracks along the 

way. This year we encountered a group of 7th graders who could not read. To meet 

the needs of these children, we hired an excellent remedial teacher through our 

Title I funds. Theses students were placed in a transitional class where instruction 

was modified to meet their needs. These students ability to read increased at least 

one grade level. Not only do we use Title I funds to meet the needs of our underachievers but also our average and above average students as well. To meet the 

needs of these students we sponsored a Saturday Academy where students and parents engaged in standards based math and science activities integrating technology. 

To help ease the transition of our pre-schoolers, each year we sponsor a transitional program with our local Headstart agency during the extended year program. 

We will be blending many services with Headstart and other child care providers 

to promote early literacy (i.e. professional development, student shadowing programs, etc.) 

Over the years Title I has made a tremendous impact on the quality of education 

our children receive. It is because of these funds, we have produced many products 

like my colleague and former student, Dr. Daniel Watkins, Superintendent of Yazoo 

City Schools. 

Having grown up in this community and attended school there, I am fully aware 

of its needs, its culture, and its economical conditions. I know that we must offer 

our children hope and assure them that they too can achieve the American dream 
8

if they prepare themselves educationally. I strongly believe that the children of 

Humphreys County, MS should be afforded the same educational opportunities as 

student in America’s most affluent communities. They, too, deserve the best education possible and we are charged as a state, county, district, and nation to see 

that this goal is achieved. For without Title I funds, we, the Humphreys County 

School System would not be able to increase student achievement, motivate students, and instill them the love of learning and a since of pride.

STATEMENT OF DR. THERRELL MYERS, SUPERINTENDENT, COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Ms. McNair. Let me 

now call on Dr. Therrell Myers. 

Dr. MYERS. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. It’s indeed 

a privilege to be a part of this panel this morning on behalf of the 

Columbus School District. Title I provides assistance to children in 

high poverty schools and supports other district, State and Federal 

programs through its focus on school wide reform efforts that we 

have. 

As you’ve already heard, parental involvement, professional development, standards and assessments are critical. They are supported through this initiative. The Columbus Municipal School District is a very progressive school district in innovating strategies, 

teaching and learning processes. The district is guided, we have a 

very simple vision center to where commitment and support equals 

the ultimate learning experience for our children. With this vision, 

we very much so indeed reflect that to providing admission, providing a quality education for every child. 

I’m going to give you a little statistics about our district and 

about our children so you can kind of unfold the parameters of 

what’s happening in the actual communities we live in. Our rolls 

are approximately 5,300 students. More and more of them, or 3,700 

or 70 percent of these students live in poverty, which is based on 

free and reduced lunch criteria. We are a high poverty school district. 

To illustrate a few of the challenges we face, allow me to profile 

a student from a family struggling to make ends meet. I want you, 

as a policy maker and other legislators or just ordinary people, to 

understand what Title I means to children who are growing up 

poor. Children of poverty face special burdens. Most of these children’s parents grew up poorly and struggled in school themselves. 

So being in school is not really very important to them and to encourage their children. Some children have innate resourcefulness, 

and others do not. Some seem to sail through childhood oblivious 

of the parents’ economic degree, others do not. Obtaining timely 

and good medical and dental care has often been a problem for 

these families. Some of these children go to bed hungry, particularly at the end of the month when the money the parents have 

set aside for food is diverted to pay high cost utility bills. Some of 

the children fall asleep to a parent reading to them, while others 

put themselves to bed on the floor, counting the minutes until their 

parents return home from a night-shift job. Fear is a common emotion among many of our students. Some children are doing well in 

school, others have failed several grades, or even on the verge of 

failing more grades, as we’re getting our data together. Some have 

great plans for the future, as you’ve heard already testified, others 

have no plans at all for their future. 
9

As a school leader, I must do everything in my power to ensure 

that public policy increases the prospect for all children in the 

State of Mississippi. The well-being of our Nation depends greatly 

upon our school’s ability to provide meaningful and challenging 

educational experiences. For more than 14 million American children who are growing up in poor families, Title I supports that as 

an underlying thread. 

Research and experience both show that poverty negatively impacts students’ academic achievement. Students living in poverty 

are more likely to have lower test scores, more learning disabilities, 

increased special education needs and are at a greater risk of dropping out of school. Now, Title I focuses on meeting the expected 

educational needs of children living in poverty that you so well 

know. Using Title I district funds, additional State funds and other 

Federal funds coupled together, we provide the direct services to 

improve academic achievement. We also lower our student teacher 

pupil ratio. We’re now 1 to 18 in our K through 6 schools. As you’ve 

heard Dr. Thompson already referenced it, we are using these dollars to impact early intervention areas. Our student, our Title I allocation is $1.6 million for this school year, and it is leveraged with 

other district, State and Federal funds to meet the needs of our 

children in K through 6. The services advance student achievement, enabling them to meet the State’s challenging academic performance, as you’ve already heard the new accountability system. 

These funds also are lying in our district to counteract many of 

them from effects of poverty. Due to the Title I revenues, this is 

what happens: Students receive more direct instruction, extended 

learning opportunities and access to enriching instructional materials. Teachers are participating in professional development funded through Title I, which is infused with the most current research 

phase instructional practices, so that our students do have the 

chance, the aids and the desire to be successful. 

Now, due to the early interventions made by Title I, our district’s 

dropout rate and graduation rate has improved. Our dropout rate 

in Columbus has decreased to 3.7 percent this year, on the most 

recent data, from a previous year of 8.2 percent. Our graduation 

rate is now 78.35 percent. And we’re not overjoyed with that, we’re 

extremely pleased every student entering the ninth grade, four 

years later, 78.35 percent are successfully completing all the requirements in Mississippi schools. 

In closing, according to the most recent National education goals 

report that Dr. Thompson has already referenced about Mississippi, Mississippi is showing gains in the fourth grade math and 

reading scores. In mathematics, Mississippi increased the top, the 

average, the bottom fortiles and became 1 of only 8 States to tighten the achievement gap between the top and bottom fortiles. These 

academic means are possible, in part, due to the Title I Program 

that is allowing us to move the lower fortile and lessen the number 

there to enhance the upper levels for our children in our State. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

As we in Columbus continue to strive for excellence in education, 

not only through Title I, but through every effort that is made, we 

simply cannot lower our achievement goals and levels. The bench 
10

mark has been raised, the bar has been raised to fully support high 

academic achievement for every child. Simply said, failure is not an 

option for children in Mississippi. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THERRELL MYERS

Title I provides assistance to at-risk children in high-poverty schools and supports 

other district, state, and Federal programs through its focus on school-wide reform 

efforts, parental involvement, professional development, standards, and assessments. Through Title I funds, local education agencies are improving basic programs 

to meet the needs of students in high poverty schools. 

—The Columbus Municipal School District (CMSD) is a progressive school district 

committed to innovative strategies for teaching and learning. The district is 

guided by the vision, ‘‘Where Commitment and Support Equals the Ultimate 

Learning Experience... Level Five by 2005!’’ This vision reflects our deep 

commitment to becoming the top ranked school district in the state as well as 

the Nation. Our mission is ‘‘to provide a quality education for every child.’’ 

—Our enrollment is approximately 5300 students. More importantly, over 3,700 

or 70 percent of these students live in poverty, so we are a high poverty school 

district. To illustrate the challenges we face, allow me to profile a student from 

a family struggling to make ends meet. I want you as policymakers, legislators, 

and ordinary people to understand what Title I means to children in poverty. 

—Children, who are growing up poor, face special burdens. Most of these children’s parents grew up poor and struggled in school themselves, so being in a 

school is not really comfortable for them. Some children have an innate resourcefulness and others do not. Some seem to sail through childhood oblivious 

to their parents’ economic struggles, but this is seldom the case. Obtaining 

timely and good-quality medical and dental care is often a problem. Some of 

these children go to bed hungry, particularly at the end of the month, when the 

money their parents have set aside for food is diverted to keep the electricity 

on. 

—Some of these children fall asleep to a parent reading to them; while others put 

themselves to bed on the floor, counting the minutes until their parent returns 

home from a night-shift job. Fear is a common emotion for many low-income 

children. 

—Some children are doing well in school; others have failed several grades or are 

on the verge of failing. Some have great plans for their futures while others 

have no plans at all. 

—As a school leader, I must do everything in my power to ensure that public policy increases the prospects for all of our children. The well-being of our Nation 

depends greatly upon our schools ability to provide meaningful and challenging 

educational experiences for the more than 14 million American children who are 

growing up in poor families. 

—Research and experience both show that poverty negatively impacts students’ 

academic achievement. Students living in poverty are more likely to have low 

test scores, more learning disabilities, increased special education needs, and 

are at a greater risk of dropping out of school. 

—Title I focuses on meeting the expansive educational needs of children living in 

poverty. Using Title I, district, state, and other Federal funds, our district provides direct services to improve the academic achievement potential of these 

children living in poverty. In our K–6 schools, Title I funds allow our district 

to reduce class size (Our average class size is now 18). Title I provides supplementary instructional materials and research-based professional development 

for our teachers. Title I allows us to extend the school day and school year to 

provide these students a safe haven, filled with enriching educational experiences. 

—The district’s annual Title I allocation, $1.6 million in fiscal year 2000, is leveraged with other district, state, and Federal funds, to allow Columbus Schools 

to provide direct services to students in our low income Kindergarten through 

6th grade schools. The services advance student achievement enabling them to 

meet the state’s challenging academic performance standards. 

—Title I funding is allowing our district to counteract many of the insurmountable affects of poverty. Due to Title I revenues, students receive more direct instruction, extended learning opportunities, and access to enriching instructional 

materials. Teachers, participating in professional development funded through 

Title I, are infusing research-based instructional practices into the classroom. 
11

The evidence is clear; due to these direct services our lower quartile students 

are performing better on standardized tests and the special education placements are declining in the district, from 662 last year to 638 this year. 

—Due to these early interventions made possible by Title I, our district’s dropout 

and graduation rates are improving. Our dropout rate has decreased to 3.7 percent this year from previous years 8.2 percent and our graduation rate is now 

78.35 percent. 

—There is no doubt, Title I funding allows our district to better serve our children 

living in poverty. With an increase in Title I funding, our district will continue 

to offer direct services to students to decrease class size, offer enriching extended day and extended year academic based programs, and expand teacher 

capacity through research-based professional development. Our teachers need 

training in the use of technology, effective discipline methods, time management, and crisis intervention. Quality professional development at the local 

level is a tremendous need. 

—In closing, according to the most recent National Education Goals Panel Report, 

Mississippi is showing gains in both 4th grade math and reading scores. In 

Mathematics, Mississippi increased the top, average, and bottom quartile scores 

and became one of only eight states to tighten the achievement gap between the 

top and bottom quartiles. In Reading, Mississippi also increased scores, especially in the lower quartile, further narrowing the gap between top and bottom 

quartiles. We feel that these gains are an express result of direct services provided to our students, services largely in part made possible through Title I 

funding. 

—As we continue to strive for excellence in education, Columbus Municipal School 

District requests not only a continuation of Title I funding, but an increase in 

Title I funding, to further support the district’s high achievement expectations 

for every student. By increasing Title I funding, all of our students, including 

the 3,700 living in poverty, will continue to be assured a quality education, and 

the ability, motivation, and confidence to learn throughout a lifetime.

STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL WATKINS, SUPERINTENDENT, YAZOO 

CITY MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Myers. And we’ll 

hear from Dr. Daniel Watkins. 

Dr. WATKINS. Good morning. 

Senator COCHRAN. Good morning. 

Dr. WATKINS. I want to start by saying that, in Yazoo City, many 

of our parents work outside of Yazoo City, in Madison County, 

Hinds County, as well as Warren County. And I want to go on 

record as saying that without extended day and extended year, we 

would be in a terrible position, but I also have records and stats 

to support all of what I’m going to say, but I want to offer myself 

as a living testimony to what Title I has meant to Mississippi, to 

the Delta and my family. 

My name is Daniel Watkins, and I am the superintendent of the 

Yazoo City public schools. I am a 1976 graduate of Humphreys 

County High School. I began my educational career in 1964 in Louise, my home town. It was 1971 that schools combined in Humphreys County, and my mother, I mention again, was a school bus 

driver. She was also a single parent with 7 children, and we would 

rise at 4 in the morning, and we would depart on the school bus 

at 4:30 to go all over Louise to drive to Belzoni. 

I also wanted to mention that my first 3 years at elementary 

school, I had a severe speech impediment that allowed me to be 

quiet when I knew answers, but I do remember Title I funding, a 

speech pathologist, to bring me out of my shyness. Again, I grew 

up in a small delta town called Louise, with my mother being the 

mother, the father, a provider and whatever else she needed to be. 

Besides school, our work consisted of working in the cotton fields. 
12

My mother drove a school bus and worked in the school’s cafeteria. 

One of the happiest days of my mother’s life was when she received 

her GED. Needless to say, she stressed education daily and yearly 

throughout my grade school life. There were many needs in our 

school system back then, to the extent that I did not quite understand, but I have since learned that through the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, the Federal Government reduced many 

of these needs. In my later years, I have seen the happiness of my 

mother as she observes her daughter working with a parenting program in Louisville, Mississippi, and two of her sons receiving 

Ph.D’s. Without the increasing help of Title I, none of these could 

have been achieved in the lives of a poor Delta family. 

I had the opportunity in the mid 1990’s to become principal of 

the middle school that is in an impoverished area here in Jackson. 

It was there that I experienced first hand the tremendous importance of Title I. This school is known for its athletics, discipline 

problems, low attendance and feeble parent support, not to mention 

low achievement. I was able to sit down with students, teachers, 

parents and community residents to address the question what can 

we do. We kept it very simple. We would use Title I money to tutor 

mornings and evenings in the areas of reading and math. In addition, we would enhance this process by simultaneously computerizing the whole school and offering computer literacy courses to 

teachers and parents. We then would utilize Title I money to address weaknesses of teachers through innovative professional development. A parent center was created on campus to aid parents 

in any way possible to get students to achieve. In a period of 4 

years, all of the problems before mentioned decreased significantly. 

The morale sky-rocketed, and this school became one of the top 

achieving schools in Jackson, with students from disadvantaged 

areas. Without the increasing help of Title I, none of these things 

could have been achieved. 

As superintendent of Yazoo City public schools, 15 miles south 

of where I grew up and 35 miles north of where I was principal, 

I see some disturbing problems. There’s very little formal education 

from infants to 3 years old. Teen pregnancy is extremely high. 

There is an alarming single parent home percentage. There’s very 

high poverty rates. And all of these variables sustain low student 

achievement. Though raising the achievement of this school system 

is a challenge, it is not insoluble. It will take efforts of all who are 

concerned. We must have programs early and extended day and extended year. We must have programs to address the many needs 

of this community and others. It is imperative that we continue in 

a progressive mode. The community of Yazoo City has not only become accustomed to certain programs, but has become dependent. 

The Title I programs are a continual and integral part in the life 

of a Yazoo City student. Without the increasing help of Title I, few 

of the previously mentioned variables that diminish student 

achievement could be challenged. 

In closing, these are personal thoughts from one who has been 

educated, is an educator and has observed education for almost 37 

years in Mississippi. This is Mississippi, it does contain a delta, it 

is ranked sometimes the number 50 or 49, depending on the year, 

in education. Whenever I hear of reductions in education, my heart 
13

goes back to my experiences as a student, a teacher, principal, as 

well as superintendent. In my professional opinion, the forces that 

depress education are not giving in. The forces that propel education must be enhanced. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I ask myself what would I cut, how can I prioritize when lives 

hang in the balance. If a program can support 20 to 25, and 25 

shows up, and all of my resources are exhausted, what criteria can 

I use. How do I face the 5 to tell them no. Somehow, through my 

life, I was always blessed to be between that number 20 and that 

number 25. There are a lot of 20 to 25’s out there hoping and praying that all who are involved continue to march forward without 

a moment of retreat. Without the increasing help of Title I, we 

could lose success and achievement and lives. Thank you, Senator. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL WATKINS

My name is Daniel Watkins, and I am the superintendent of the Yazoo City Public Schools. I am a 1976 graduate of Humphreys County High School. I grew up in 

a small delta town called Louise with my mother being the mother, father, a provider and whatever else she needed to be. Besides school, our work consisted of 

working in the cotton fields. My mother drove a school bus and worked in the 

school’s cafeteria. One of the happiest days in my mother’s life was when she received her GED. Needless to say, she stressed education daily and yearly throughout my grade school life. There were many needs in our school system back then 

to the extent that I did not quite understand. But I have since learned that through 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Federal government reduced many of the needs. In my later years, I have seen the happiness of my mother 

as she observes her daughter working with a parenting program in Louisville, Mississippi, and two of her sons receiving Ph.D.s. Without the increasing help of Title 

I, none of these could have been achieved in the lives of a poor delta family. 

I had the opportunity in the mid-nineties to become principal of a middle school 

that is in an impoverished area in Jackson, Mississippi. It was there that I experienced first hand the tremendous importance of Title I. This school was known for 

its athletics, discipline problems, low attendance, and feeble parent support, not to 

mention low achievement. I was able to sit down with students, teachers, parents, 

and community residents and address the question, ‘‘What can we do?’’ We kept it 

very simple. We would use Title I money to tutor mornings and evenings in the 

areas of reading and math. In addition, we would enhance this process by simultaneously computerizing the whole school and offering computer literacy courses to 

teachers and parents. We then would utilize Title I money to address weaknesses 

of teachers through innovative professional development. A parent center was created on campus to aid parents in any way possible to get students to achieve. In 

a period of four years, all of the problems aforementioned decreased significantly. 

The morale skyrocketed and this school became one of the top achieving schools in 

Jackson with students from disadvantaged areas. Without the increasing help of 

Title I, none of these things could have been achieved. 

As superintendent of the Yazoo City Public Schools, fifteen miles south of where 

I grew up, and thirty-five miles north of where I was principal, I see some disturbing problems. There is very little formal education from infancy to three. Teen 

pregnancy is extremely high. There is an alarming single parent home percentage. 

There is a very high poverty rate. All of these variables sustain low student achievement. 

Though raising the achievement of this school system is a challenge, it is not insurmountable. It will take the efforts of all who are concerned. We must have programs early and extended day. We must have an extended year. We must have programs to address the many needs of this community and others. It is imperative 

that we continue in a progressive mode. The community of Yazoo City has not only 

become accustomed to such programs, but has become dependent. The Title I programs are a continuing integral part in the life of a Yazoo City student. Without 

the increasing help of Title I, few of the previously mentioned variables that diminish student achievement could be challenged. 
14

In closing, these are personal thoughts from one who has been educated, is an 

educator and has observed education for almost thirty-seven years in Mississippi. 

This is Mississippi, it does contain a delta, it is ranked sometimes number 50 or 

49 depending on the year in education. Whenever I hear of reductions in education, 

my heart goes back to my experiences as a student, a teacher, principal as well as 

superintendent. In my professional opinion the forces that depress education are not 

giving in. The forces that propel education must be enhanced. I asked myself, what 

would I cut? How can I prioritize when lives hang in the balances? If a program 

can support twenty and twenty-five shows up and all of my resources are exhausted, 

what criteria can I use? How do I face the five to tell them no? Somehow, through 

my life, I was always blessed to be between twenty and twenty-five. There are a 

lot of twenty to twenty-fives’ out there hoping and praying that all who are involved 

continues to march forward without a moment of retreat. 

Without the increasing help of Title I, we could lose success in achievement and 

lives.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Watkins. Very interesting and moving testimony that you’ve given us this morning. 

Your personal experiences are very helpful to us in understanding 

the real life consequences of this program and what it can do to 

broaden the horizons of a young student. 

What was the name of the school? I know you said it, probably, 

and I just didn’t write it down and remember it. When you were 

going to school, was there a Title I program in the school where 

you were going and what was the school? 

Dr. WATKINS. Yes. My first 6 years was Montgomery Elementary 

and Louise. My last 6 years was at Humphreys County in Humphreys County. The school that I was principal of was Pineville 

Middle school here in Jackson. 

Senator COCHRAN. In your experience as principal and now as a 

superintendent, do you have any suggestions for how the Title I 

Program could be improved? I ask that question because my father 

was a principal and later became superintendent of a county school 

district here in Hinds County, as a matter of fact, and I recall his 

saying one time, this was about when I was running for Congress, 

he wanted me to do something about this, that the Federal funds 

that were coming into schools were too tightly restricted in how 

that they could be used, that they needed to be more broadly available so that local administrators could have more discretion in the 

use of the funds. Have you found that to be of a problem, or is the 

modern Title I Program more flexible in how you can use the funds 

that are available to you? 

Dr. WATKINS. In the last two years, it has become more flexible, 

but I do want to say that we do need more money in the way of 

bringing together the various elements in the community. Often 

times, we could do more things at night, we can do more things 

with the community leaders, we can do more things with clergy 

and single parents, a lot of preventative measures. One thing I 

would like to see in Yazoo City, and I’m sure in other communities, 

is that we can take Federal money and offer more programs between the ages of birth to three years old. A lot of practices occur 

in some school systems where there is some retention in K and 1 

and 2, but it is disadvantageous in later years. Some people are 

adopting the philosophy that sometimes it takes two years to give 

a student one year of a sound educational start. I would like to see 

more money, more release of restrictions in the area to better benefit early childhood. 
15

Senator COCHRAN. There is some suggestion now being made 

about the administration in Washington that we should use the 

head start program more aggressively for intervention and reading 

instruction or maybe diagnostic activity. What’s your reaction to 

that? 

Dr. WATKINS. There, Senator, I agree. In fact, there in Yazoo 

City, we have 3,000 students. We have two classrooms, one each 

at our K through 2 schools. It is a blended class, with head start 

students there, but we need more. Again, in Yazoo City, from infancy to three, the majority of these students have no formal education. And even that one or two years in head start, even those 

blended classrooms, it is simply just not enough. 

Senator COCHRAN. Dr. Myers, your experience is similar in that 

you have a city school district that you are responsible for administering. Is your reaction to my question to Dr. Watkins about the 

same in terms of the flexibility that you have for using Title I 

funds, did you have any suggestions for how the program could be 

changed to make it more helpful to you as an administrator? 

Dr. MYERS. Senator Cochran, the flexibility as described already 

has allowed us the ability to look at our needs through a comprehensive needs assessment, and it’s really working tremendously 

better in terms of the opportunity that we can design for our restricted areas, our local areas in a restricted process. There is no 

doubt early intervention is where it must be focused to be able to 

head the early problems off, to be able to correct those. 

In our school district, we can give you some sample of this, we 

have a $34 million operational budget. We spend between $8 and 

$9 million annually trying to help children catch up. And we simply, in this country, cannot continue, and in our school districts. 

We must be able to advance that in those areas of need and talk 

about higher level of functioning versus helping children catch up. 

So coming to school ready to learn is very important. The flexibility 

is there now to allow us to do that. And as you shared earlier, we 

have some entering into agreements with our head start. 

Post communications are really functioning now. And to give you 

a prime example of how it works, we had 175 child care providers 

in our schools this past month that we’re going to train so that 

they know what is expected for a child to be able to enter school 

ready to learn. This flexibility must continue. We must be able to 

make the local decisions, the decisions locally based on our population. 

Senator COCHRAN. You mentioned that you received $1.6 million 

from the Title I Program in your district this year. What is that 

in terms of percentage of the total budget that you have to work 

with? 

Dr. MYERS. Well, I think percentage wise, I mean, I can get it 

accurately, I gave you an operational budget of $34 million. 

Senator COCHRAN. $34 million. 

Dr. MYERS. And that 1.6 is only a small supplement to our total 

educational process. And, as prescribed, we use it to advance and 

build upon, if I can use those terms. That’s where the continued 

funding and the enhanced funding is so critical, because if those 

dollars reduce, then you can see the impact that that begins having 

in our district. 
16

Senator COCHRAN. You probably heard Dr. House when she was 

discussing the reductions that have been passed on from the Department of Education in Washington. Allocations were less than 

they were last year, I guess compared from last year. What impact 

has that had in your particular school district? 

Dr. MYERS. The impact will be fewer people, fewer services, and 

then we’ll have to re-prioritize our priorities to try to serve those 

students in numbers that will remain, and, ultimately, that 

amounts to about 80,000, between 58,000 and 80,000, based on 

that percentage formula. So in terms, there’s fewer teachers, 

there’s fewer diagnostic services made available, our professional 

development with our teachers and research-based practices, how 

to work with young children will be lessened. And in the end, we 

reduce our services to our customer. 

Senator COCHRAN. Ms. McNair, you mentioned that very eloquently, all the different programs that you have in your school 

district are designed to try to reach out to those who are disadvantaged and maybe don’t have the right kind of leadership at home 

or in their community. The 45 percent figure you gave us, people 

in poverty in the district, is that the student population, that’s the 

student population, so that helps determine the amount of Title I 

funds that you get. Do you have a figure for the amount of money 

that you actually get in Humphreys County? 

Ms. MCNAIR. In Title I? 

Senator COCHRAN. In Title I. 

Ms. MCNAIR. $1.3 million. 

Senator COCHRAN. $1.3 million. What is your reaction to the 

questions that I’ve asked to both Dr. Watkins and Dr. Myers, and 

that is the flexibility in the way the program is designed, do you 

have any suggestions about changes in the program, except for increases in money? I know we need more money, generally, we can 

use it in our State, but are there any program changes that you 

would recommend? 

Ms. MCNAIR. I think in the recent years, we’ve had a lot more 

flexibility. And like Dr. Myers, we do our needs assessment and we 

prioritize on these needs, and we prioritize based on those needs. 

So we appreciate that flexibility, but I, too, would like to see more 

emphasis on early childhood education. That if we can bridge that 

gap in our district, we can have a transition piece with our head 

start program. This past week, well, yesterday, as a matter of fact, 

we brought in all of our head start staff, head start staff and early 

pre-K providers into a training on what they should be doing with 

educating preschool children, but we need a lot more in my community. Education is not a top priority. We have a lot of homes where 

our parents are functionally illiterate. So if we can intervene in the 

lives of those children early on from birth, then that child will 

enter school ready to learn and come with those social skills and 

those other prerequisites necessary to be successful. So if we could 

do a lot more with early childhood, and I also would like to see 

something done with literacy within the community, if we can do 

that in my community, we can see student achievement. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. Dr. House, what do you consider 

to be the most beneficial aspect of the Title I Program, if you can 

single out one or two things? 
17

Dr. HOUSE. You really already addressed it, again, the flexibility 

of the program. Twenty years ago, I was a Title I teacher. And at 

that point in time, the program was run like targeted assistance 

programs are run now, and that really tied your hands in doing 

some things that would benefit children in schools. The fact that 

we now have school wide programs, I believe, is a wonderful benefit. And seeing that comprehensive change taking place throughout the schools really support what Title I is intended to do. So if 

I could say anything that’s beneficial, that would be the number 

one thing, and I hope all superintendents and principals would 

agree with that. 

I also think the fact that we, as a State, are working collaboratively under the umbrella of Title I. It is extremely beneficial, 

you’ve heard mentioned already, about the blending of services 

with Title I and pre-K and head start. And the fact that that’s encouraged through Title I office in Washington is a real benefit. 

That flexibility with funding of those programs and allowing those 

programs to work collaboratively is, indeed, meeting the needs of 

our children. So I definitely think that that is a benefit, as well. 

One other benefit, if I may mention, that’s really a State concern, 

is the waiver system that is in use for Title I. As you may well 

know, this State has been working for several years to design assessment accountability system that we believe is premier. That 

does not occur quickly. And the fact that the USDE was willing to 

provide us a waiver of time to allow us to do this the right way 

has been most beneficial for us as a State. We’re doing all the right 

steps and not rushing what the system is going to look like, so that 

all of the players have a part, the system is being taken apart and 

reviewed in every possible way to make it be appropriate and really, really top quality. So the waiver system certainly has been a 

benefit for our State. 

Senator COCHRAN. Have you sought waivers, and if you have, 

have they been approved to help the State meet the goals of Title 

I? 

Dr. HOUSE. Yes, sir, we have, and they have been approved. And 

we really appreciate the way the USDE has worked with us. 

They’ve been most helpful. 

Senator COCHRAN. Can you identify any Title I requirements 

that are too cumbersome? 

Dr. HOUSE. Yes, sir. I’m sorry. 

Senator COCHRAN. You have a long list or a short list? 

Dr. HOUSE. It’s about two or three items. This is almost contradictory, but I don’t want it to be. School requirement used to be 

a wonderful way to approach Title I services, but having a 50 percent requirement on free and reduced lunches leaves out a lot of 

schools that have 48 percent free and reduced lunches, 46 percent 

free and reduced lunch. And I believe that I read in President 

Bush’s No Child Left Behind was a consideration of lowering that 

to 40 percent. And we certainly believe that that can really dramatically improve the programs that are being provided in the 

schools that are currently operating target assistance programs 

and allow them to really get after that comprehensive school reform. 
18

One of the other issues that the staff in my office deals with on 

a daily basis is how private schools are included with the Title I 

Program. What we would like to suggest, as an office, is that there 

would be some consideration of having the private schools actually 

be held a little more accountable for how they utilize their funds. 

Right now, as you know, the funding follows the student. The funding is really not given to the private school, per say, but, rather, 

is taken from the public school arena and sent with the student to 

attend the private school. Right now, as the regulation stands, the 

public schools have been held accountable for every aspect of the 

utilization of those funds. We do have all of our public schools 

going to the private schools to monitor the use of those funds, but 

they cannot be there every day. And sometimes they are cited for 

regulatory exceptions that really were the cause of how the private 

school utilized the funding. We aren’t proposing that the funds 

don’t follow the students to the private schools, but we do believe 

they should have a more significant role in being held accountable 

for those funds than they currently are. 

The last thing that I would like to emphasize today is the importance of early childhood education. And the more we can do with 

Title I funds to give our youngsters the program head start, the 

stronger our program’s going to be for our State. 

Senator COCHRAN. Do you have any suggestions about the way 

allocations to our State are made? Should there be changes in what 

Dr. Thompson referred to as the standard that is used for determining allocation? How would you suggest changing that, so that 

our State would get our fair share of funding? 

Dr. HOUSE. Well, I’m certainly not a statistician, so I cannot get 

into all the specifics of the statistical formula, but I would like to 

say a couple of things about that. One, we know that there’s a huge 

discrepancy in what the poverty data indicate and what our free 

and reduced lunch data indicate, and we know that there’s some 

differences in how those are calculated. We do have the fortune of 

having a wonderful statistician here on staff, Dr. Steve Hegler, who 

I believe is right behind me. And Dr. Hegler has prepared an extensive report that is provided for you as part of the official record. 

He’s actually spent the last month doing some very extensive research on looking at funding formulas through a variety of different avenues and how those funding formulas could, perhaps, be 

reutilized to allowing Mississippi to, indeed, get a share of the 

funding that better represents the numbers that we’re seeing on 

our free and reduced lunch programs, because there is a tremendous discrepancy right now. 

Senator COCHRAN. That would be very helpful to us as we’re in 

the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Thank you very much for that. 

Dr. Thompson, how does the accountability model used by the 

Department of Education measure the adequate yearly progress of 

student achievement as required by Title I regulations? 

Dr. THOMPSON. Senator, as you can tell, there’s great people in 

this building, great people in the State department, I don’t have to 

do much of that, but we started this concept two and a half years 

ago, and what we know is really important is that there’s so many 

of our children come to school with great deprivation, as you heard 
19

from all of our folks. It was important for us to develop a model 

that did two things, that, one, measured progress over time, same 

students. That’s very important. Lots of people that have been 

measuring, you know, last year’s fourth grade versus this year’s 

fourth grade, that is not the kind of progress we want to monitor. 

We monitor that so we have that information, but it’s much more 

important to measure that child coming at the end of second grade, 

how much did they grow from the second grade to third grade. So 

the very essence of our accountability system and our assessment 

system is based on, number one, what should Mississippi children 

know. And we brought in our teachers from all over the State, and 

everything we’re testing new, that curriculum has been reviewed, 

revised and it reflects our high National standard, we used all of 

the National standards, National math standards, english, reading, 

all of those things, and reflected it in our curriculum. 

And then we’ve done something else a lot of States haven’t done, 

we built the support system for that. We didn’t just go out and tell 

those teachers you’re on your own. We developed training, we have 

resources that were put into that, and then we’ve developed standards, how much of that should students know. Again, we’re using 

our teachers that are out there every single day, looking at the National standards, coming in, helping with the assessment standards. We chose the assessment system that parallels exactly what 

that curriculum is. In other words, there should be no surprises. 

Children should know. But what we’re doing, we’re changing our 

system so that now we’re not looking at the system as a whole, 

we’re looking at each individual school. So every school in the State 

of Mississippi will be held accountable for two things; one, the 

amount of growth. We will give each school a growth expectation, 

and based on where the children are when they get here, and that’s 

fate, because we expect them to learn. Whether they’re high 

achievement, low achievement, middle achievement, this is where 

the children are when you got them, this is how much you are expected to move them. That reflects a reasonable amount of growth, 

basically correlated with one year’s worth of achievement and one 

year’s worth of school wherever they are. 

The second thing we’re looking at is each school and each child, 

so that every child in grades 3 through 8 will have this kind of information to actually start the first test at the end of second grade 

to set the bench mark so we can measure that growth. The second 

thing to look at is proficiency levels. I know you know, when we 

started this, they were not required in the Federal legislation. Now 

since we’ve been doing this, I don’t think the Federal Government 

took it from us, necessarily, but that is a part of what we have to 

do. We will be setting proficiency levels for every child, and so we’ll 

be able to report to you and everyone else, every parent walks in 

the door, we can show them how much that child grew during the 

year, we can show them at what proficiency level they are functioning. The four levels that we’ve chosen are at the highest level, 

which is advanced, and then we use the proficient, and we use the 

basic, and then the last one is minimum. So we’ll be able to tell 

the parent where their child is functioning. We will also be able to 

tell, in each school, what percentage of children in that school are 

performing at grade level. And so we’re measuring it two different 
20

ways, we’re measuring the growth of each school and each child, 

and we’re measuring it by the number of students proficient at that 

school. We think that’s really the right way to do it. 

Senator COCHRAN. We know that the amount of dollars that 

come to Mississippi is very substantial, I think $126 million is the 

figure that I mentioned in my opening statement. What would be 

the practical result if those funds were substantially reduced or 

limited and you weren’t getting those funds, what would be the 

consequences for the State of Mississippi? 

Dr. THOMPSON. My mind is racing for an appropriate word, and 

it’s coming up, tragedy doesn’t do it. I mean, you could just think 

of the most devastating word you can think of, because so many, 

these people sitting at this table, I know what sort of circumstances they work in, I go out and I see, and they’re making 

incredible progress with limited resources. And while 1.6 million 

may not sound like a whole lot when it’s close to 34 million, I know 

what that means to the total piece, because all of these administrators are incredible at leverage, and they’re using dollars from every 

which way. And for them to have to reduce that is going to reduce 

direct services to children. And as we move into this new model of 

accountability, they’re going to be dependent more on Title I funds 

than they ever did, because those are the funds they’re going to use 

to help these children meet these higher standards that, quite 

frankly, are going to change these children’s lives. It’s going to give 

our children the same opportunity that every other child in America has. It would just be unfortunate, Senator, if these funds were 

cut. 

Senator COCHRAN. My staff member, Ann Copland, wrote me a 

note a while ago when Dr. House was talking about the fact that 

during the current year, there has been some changes by the Department of Education, and the amount of money we thought we 

were going to get. We had written into the Federal law a hold 

harmless provision, so that funds wouldn’t be reduced, but in spite 

of that, this pro rata reduction is being made in all States, and that 

has been brought to the attention of our subcommittee and our 

Chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, and I’m advised that we’re probably going to request that the appropriations committee provide a 

supplemental appropriation and try to address that problem by restoring those funds. Whether that will be successful or not, I can’t 

predict right now, but it does have the attention of our committee 

and efforts have already begun. 

Let me say that my impression of the information that we’ve received this morning through the testimony and statements that 

have been provided to the committee, the very helpful information 

that’s been compiled and provided, which is part of the record, will 

be very helpful and persuasive to our committee as we proceed 

through the appropriations process this year and the reauthorization process of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. So I 

personally appreciate your willingness to help me, and on behalf of 

the committee, get a better understanding of the practical consequences of the benefits of these programs and your sharing information and your experiences, personal in many cases, about how 

important this program can be. I think this has given us an impressive and important body of information to help us seek ways 
21

to get continued funding for Title I approved in Washington and 

specifically for States like Mississippi, Mississippi included, that 

have high percentages of disadvantaged students. 

I’m also going to make sure that we keep our hearing record 

open so that those who want to submit additional information, 

those in the audience who may want to write a letter or make a 

statement, can do so in writing and submit it to me, Thad Cochran, 

United States Senate, Washington, D.C., I’ll get it, and we’ll make 

it a part of our hearing record. We do appreciate the attendance 

of many here in the audience today. I had a chance to talk, for example, to Ms. Gail Warner from Tupelo, who’s the Title I coordinator in Tupelo, who had written a letter, which we’ll make a part 

of the record, and invite her to furnish even more information 

about how the Title I Program works in the Tupelo School District. 

And others who have experiences of that kind can be helpful to us 

in compiling an impressive body of information and facts to support 

our articles in behalf of the Title I Program. 

[The information follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS, MISSISSIPPI

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared to help answer questions concerning the formulas used 

by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) to make allocations of Title 1 funds 

to states and individual school districts. An examination of printed materials related 

to the Title 1 allocation process revealed that much work has been done to develop 

useful methods for determining the number of school-age children in poverty in 

counties and school districts throughout the nation. There are, however, efforts underway to improve those estimates. In addition to the review of the literature, several sources of data were collected and analyses were conducted to examine differences and relationships in the data used for allocating Title 1 funds to school districts in Mississippi. 

This report is divided into two sections. The first section is a review of the literature and is comprised, mainly, of text extracted or adapted from reports of the 

National Research Council. The reports are available from the National Academy 

Press in Washington, D.C. The second section of the report comprises a presentation 

of the analysis of poverty and population data for Mississippi school districts. 

SECTION 1: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

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. Historically, 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 late 1992, the U.S. Census Bureau organized the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program to develop methods for producing postcensal income and poverty estimates for states and counties by using multiple data sources 

and innovative statistical methods. 

The development of accurate county-level estimates of population and poverty is 

very challenging. For Title I allocations, there is no single administrative or survey 

data source that provides sufficient information with which to develop reliable direct 

estimates. The March Income Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS) 

can provide reasonably reliable annual direct estimates of population characteristics 

such as the number and proportion of poor children at the national level and possibly for the largest states. However, the CPS cannot provide direct estimates for 
22

the majority of counties. The CPS data are used as the basis for creating usable 

estimates for counties through the application of statistical estimation techniques. 

These estimates are called ‘‘model-based’’ or ‘‘indirect’’ estimates. The model-based 

estimators use data from several areas, time periods, or data sources, including the 

previous census, to improve the precision of estimates for small areas. 

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 estimates for 

counties and in 1998 with estimates for school districts. The Department 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 

was 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 counties 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 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. 

School District Estimates 

As a result of the lack of data at the school district level, the Census Bureau has 

been constrained to use for school districts a very simple model-based method referred to as synthetic estimation. This method for producing updated school district 

estimates 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 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. 

Evaluation of Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty 

The National Research Council (NRC) was charged with evaluating the methods 

used by the Census Bureau for producing estimates for counties and school districts. 

To accomplish this task, the NRC formed the Panel on Estimates of Poverty for 

Small Geographic Areas. The panel comprises members of the NRC Committee on 

National Statistics. 

In assessing the Census Bureau’s 1995 school district estimates of the numbers 

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 produced 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 children 

for 1993. On the basis of internal and external evaluations that were conducted on 

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 coun-
23

ty estimates for Title I allocations for the 1998–1999 school year. 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 

estimation 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 concluded 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 interpreted ‘‘inappropriate and unreliable’’ in a relative sense. Some set of estimates 

must be used to distribute Title I funds to school districts. The panel concluded 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 suggested 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 is 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 responds 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 twostage 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 allocations 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 allocations by grouping the 

allocations for small size districts by county and redistributing the county totals to 

those districts. 

Some Characteristics of Funding Formulas 

For purposes of allocating funds or other related program purposes, it is important that poverty and population estimates be sufficiently reliable. Even with estimates that exhibit an adequate degree of reliability, there are generally tradeoffs 

among competing funding goals or purposes. For fund allocation, it is important to 

consider features of the specific allocation formula, some of which may be sensitive 

to the level of accuracy in the estimates. 

Studies have shown that, in general, a higher sampling error together with a 

threshold, a hold harmless provision, or both, tend to equalize the funding amount 

per eligible person (poor child in the Title I program) across areas. This result is 

counter to the goal of a program, such as Title I concentration grants, that is designed to provide extra funding (beyond the basic grant) to needier areas. 

It has been suggested that moving-average estimates could serve the goal of cushioning budgets against fund decreases without misallocating funding as much as a 

hold-harmless provision. 

The NRC Committee on National Standards is planning to conduct additional 

work on issues regarding the interactions among data sources, estimation procedures, and allocation formulas. 

NRC Recommendations for Small Area Estimates and Title 1 Funding 

Any state plan approved by the Department of Education for redistributing the 

sum of the department’s allocations for school districts with under 20,000 population 

should 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 that was begun in 1999–2000. The study 

should examine the allocation methods used and assess the results. 
24

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 substantial 

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 for developing 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. 

While it may be possible, in the future, to develop more accurate and timely income and poverty estimates for small areas by using new improved sources of data 

from household surveys and administrative records, none of the existing or planned 

surveys or administrative records can, by itself, provide direct estimates of sufficient 

reliability, timeliness, and quality. Therefore, in the near future, the SAIPE program should continue to use models that combine data from more than one source 

to produce indirect estimates. 

Looking to the future, as more data become available from such sources as the 

American Community Survey and the 2000 census, the use of time-series and multivariate modeling techniques that make use of multiple years of data from the same 

survey, separate surveys, or both, could be advantageous. Work on such models 

should proceed, building on the Census Bureau’s previous efforts along these lines. 

A process for geo-coding school districts using addresses would assist in the development of direct income and poverty estimates for school districts. Currently, IRS, 

Food Stamp, and other administrative records can only be associated with a particular county, not with a particular school district. 

Note: Most of the text in the above section was extracted from Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty—Interim Report 3: Evaluation of 1995 

County and School District Estimates for Title I Allocations, Panel on Estimates of 

Poverty for Small Geographic Areas, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press (1999). 

Additional information in this section came from a subsequent report—Small Area 

Income and Poverty Estimates: Priorities for 2000 and Beyond, Panel on Estimates 

of Poverty for Small Geographic Areas, Committee on National Statistics, National 

Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press (2000). 

SECTION 2: TITLE I FUNDS ALLOCATION IN MISSISSIPPI

For the 2000–2001 school year, Title I Basic Grant and Concentration Grant allocations were made by USDE for each state and for individual school districts in 

each state based on the SAIPE estimates described in Section 1. Each state had to 

adjust the allocations to provide for state administration and school improvement 

and to account for eligible school districts that did not receive an allocation. In order 

to compare the values used by the USDE for allocating funds to school districts in 

Mississippi to other data related to student population and student poverty, several 

sets of data were compiled. The 5–17 population estimates and the estimated poverty n-counts for Mississippi school districts were extracted from the allocation 

spreadsheets from the USDE. These data were matched by district to K–12 enrollment and free and reduced lunch eligibility counts from October 1999, and to 1999–

2000 school year cumulative free and reduced lunch participation data. This section 

of the report presents findings from analyses conducted on those data. 

USDE POPULATION ESTIMATES AND DISTRICT ENROLLMENT FIGURES

There are differences between the USDE estimates of the student population 

(ages 5–17) and the K–12 enrollment figures reported by Mississippi school districts. 

While it would be expected that the statewide population estimate would be relatively accurate, there is a difference of approximately 50,000 students between the 
25

USDE estimates and the reported enrollment. The statewide USDE estimate for the 

1999–2000 school year was 551,315 students, while the reported statewide enrollment for the end of October 1999 was 501,417 students. The difference of 49,898 

students represents approximately 10 percent of the actual statewide K–12 enrollment. 

On a district by district basis, there were varying differences between the USDE 

estimate and the K–12 enrollment figure (an average difference of 19 percent of the 

actual K–12 enrollment with absolute differences for individual districts ranging 

from 0 percent to 143 percent). 

For 56 districts (38 percent of the 149 public school districts) the USDE estimate 

was within 10 percent of the actual K–12 enrollment. These differences are comparable to the overall statewide difference of approximately 10 percent. 

For 30 districts (20 percent), the USDE estimate was 10–19 percent greater than 

the actual enrollment. 

For 37 districts (32 percent) the USDE estimate was greater by at least 20 percent, with differences exceeding 50 percent for 11 districts (4 percent). 

In practically all cases where the USDE estimates disagreed with the official K–

12 enrollment, the USDE values were greater. However, there were 13 cases (9 percent) where the USDE estimates were lower than the actual enrollment by 10–19 

percent. There were only 3 cases (2 percent) where the USDE estimate was smaller 

than the actual enrollment by 20 percent or more. 

The USDE estimates are expected to be somewhat greater than the actual public 

school enrollment because the USDE value is an estimate of all students between 

the ages of 5 and 17 residing within the school district. The K–12 enrollment includes only public school students—students attending non-public schools and students being home schooled are not included. While the 10 percent variance at the 

state level may be a reasonable difference due to non-public school attendance, the 

population estimate differences from district to district far exceed that expected due 

to this factor. Since the Title 1 allocation formula includes thresholds based on poverty rates, the estimated 5- 17 enrollment (used as a denominator in the poverty 

rate calculation) plays a critical role in determining a district’s Title 1 allocation 

(prior to any adjustment due to the hold harmless provision). If the population estimates are unreliable, the poverty rates will also be unreliable. 

Free Lunch Eligibility and Participation 

The SAIPE small area estimates used by the USDE for making Title 1 allocations 

do not include information about the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). The 

main reason is the lack of usable data. The only Federal agency that has attempted 

to obtain school lunch data for school districts is the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES). NCES collects school lunch counts as part of its Common Core 

of Data system in which state educational agencies report a large number of data 

items for public school systems. However, the center does not follow up with states 

when there is no information provided for a school district or to evaluate the accuracy of the reports. So, the quality of the data is not established and they are not 

complete. The Department of Agriculture obtains aggregate free and reduced price 

lunch counts each October at the state level for purposes of reimbursing states for 

meals served, but it does not collect data for individual school districts. 

While accurate data on free lunch eligibility and participation at the school district level would be a useful measure of student economic status, it would not be 

directly comparable to the data used for the SAIPE estimates. That is because the 

SAIPE values are estimates of the number of students in families that are below 

the poverty level while free lunch eligibility is based on a threshold set at 130 percent of the annual poverty threshold. That is, the population of students eligible for 

free lunch includes both poor students and those that are near-poor. Since both the 

SAIPE poverty counts and the free lunch participation counts are based on numbers 

of students reaching a different eligibility threshold, there is no way to ascertain 

the underlying degree of poverty within the free lunch data. For example, if 100 students were eligible for free lunch under the NSLP, all 100 of the students could be 

part of families that are below the poverty threshold. Or, all 100 students could be 

part of families with incomes between the poverty threshold and 130 percent of the 

poverty threshold—it would be possible for none of the students to be living below 

the poverty level. Given accurate family income values and the number of family 

members for each student in the National School Lunch Program, these data could 

be used within the Title 1 funding formula. Although this information is included 

on the forms completed annually by families applying for NSLP participation, the 

results are transformed into an eligibility status at the school district level and the 

raw data are generally not provided to state educational agencies. 
26

While the problems above make NSLP data unusable for establishing Title 1 allocations nationally, individual states can propose using these data in formulas for reallocating Title 1 funds, with certain restrictions, among school districts. Any state 

desiring to use alternative data for allocating fund must apply to the USDE for approval. The state must justify the use of the alternative data and show that the data 

are accurate and reliable enough for allocation purposes. 

For purposes of the following analyses, cumulative free lunch participation data 

for 1999–2000 were compiled for the 149 public school districts in Mississippi. The 

average percentage of daily meals that were free lunch meals was used as a relative 

measure of student poverty within each school district. The reported October K–12 

enrollment for each school district was used along with the average free lunch participation rate to obtain an estimate of the number of students living in poverty or 

near-poverty. 

In addition to actual free lunch participation rates, the reported numbers of students who were designated eligible for free lunch in October 1999 (based on applications submitted during the summer or at the beginning of the school term) in each 

school district were collected. The eligibility numbers included students whose families later received a request for income verification. Students whose verification 

form indicated an income above the NSLP free lunch eligibility threshold and students whose verification forms were not returned were dropped from participation 

in the free lunch component. So, while the figures for free lunch participation and 

free lunch eligibility are similar for each district, they are not usually equal. One 

additional source of variance associated with the use of NSLP data is the fact that 

some eligible students or their parents do not apply for participation in the program. Reasons for this include a perceived stigma associated with participation in 

the program (especially at the higher grade levels) and failure of some districts’ to 

reach and inform eligible families. 

USDE Poverty Estimates and District Free Lunch Participation 

Using free lunch (FL) as a relative measure of student poverty in Mississippi, 

there are only small differences between free lunch eligibility and average free 

lunch participation for the 1999–2000 school year. The two values are highly related 

(r=.98, N=149) and differ by only 7 percent at the state level. 

The reported average rate of free lunch participation statewide was 61 percent 

(307,237 students within the K–12 total enrollment of 501,417). In contrast the 

USDE poverty n-count estimate for the state was 28 percent (155,334 students within the 5–17 population estimate of 551,315 students). Part of the difference between 

these values is due to the fact that the USDE poverty estimate is based on the annual poverty threshold while the FL participation rates are based on eligibility set 

at 130 percent of the annual poverty threshold. So, a direct comparison of these two 

figures is not meaningful. 

However, it is useful to determine the relationship between the USDE poverty estimates and the free lunch participation values. If the underlying income distribution of students is somewhat linear from a point below the poverty threshold to the 

poverty ∂30 percent NSLP criterion, a strong relationship would be expected between the USDE and FL values. The relationship between the USDE poverty estimates for the 149 school districts in Mississippi and FL participation in those districts is moderately high (r=.85). Since there is no accurate external administrative 

data on which to substantiate the accuracy of either the USDE poverty estimates 

or the FL-based poverty rates, there is no compelling reason, at this time, to select 

one data source over the other for purposes of sub-allocating state funds to school 

districts within counties. 

Analyses were conducted to determine whether the USDE poverty estimates or 

the FL participation rates for districts were correlated with district size. The relationships between the USDE 5–17 population estimates and the poverty measures 

(USDE poverty rate estimate and FL participation rate) were r=¥.16 and r=¥.18, 

respectively (both N=149). This indicates that the poverty rate is not systematically 

higher or lower depending on the size of the school district as estimated by the 

USDE. The relationships between actual district K–12 enrollment figures and the 

poverty measures were slightly greater (r=¥.25 for both the USDE poverty estimates and the FL participation rates). These data indicate a relatively weak relationship between the poverty rates and enrollment with higher poverty rates associated with smaller districts. 

CONCLUSION

There is already much work underway to improve population, income, and poverty 

estimates for small areas and to develop procedures to allow direct measures of 

these values for counties and school districts. It is important for legislators and oth-
27

ers who use this kind of information to stay current on this work and anticipate 

its impact on program funding. The agencies involved in this work include the U.S. 

Census Bureau and the National Research Council. 

Funding formulas with inherent characteristics that produce results that are 

counter to those intended should be avoided. The effect of certain formula characteristics such as thresholds and hold harmless provisions should be studied carefully 

before being adopted. 

While the data collection for the 2000 census is already completed, one can hope 

that the attempts to inform citizens of the importance of responding accurately was 

successful and that the data are reliable and free from the excessive variability that 

characterized the 1990 census data. 

APPENDIX

Listings of Population N-Counts, Poverty Rates, and Differences by School District 

for each of the three sorted lists that follow (Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix 

C), the following data column headings are used: 

DIST.—The Mississippi school district code number. 

District Name.—The name of the school district. 

USDE N517.—The SAIPE small area estimate of the population of children ages 

5–17 within the school district. 

K–12 Enrol.—The October 1999 enrollment for grades K–12 as reported by school 

districts. 

Diff as percent of Enrol.—The difference between the SAIPE 5–17 population estimate and the reported K–12 enrollment stated as a percentage of the K–12 enrollment value. 

USDE percent Pov.—The SAIPE small area estimate of the percentage of the estimated 5–17 population that are in families living below the annual poverty threshold. 

Percent FL Partic.—The average percentage free lunch participation rate for the 

district (i.e., the average percentage meals served that were free lunch meals during 

1999–2000). 

Diff as percent FL Part.—The difference between the SAIPE estimated poverty 

rate and the relative poverty rate based on free lunch participation stated as a percentage of the free lunch participation rate. Note: Differences are expected between 

these values because of differences in the eligibility thresholds. 

Diff as percent USDE Pov.—The difference between the SAIPE estimated poverty 

rate and the relative poverty rate based on free lunch participation stated as a percentage of the SAIPE poverty rate estimate. Note: Differences are expected between 

these values because of differences in the eligibility thresholds.

APPENDIX A.—SORTED BY DISTRICT NAME 

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

4820 Aberdeen ........................... 2,569 2,169 18 33 79 ¥139 ¥58

200 Alcorn ................................ 3,634 3,800 ¥4 16 44 ¥175 ¥64

300 Amite County .................... 2,845 1,650 72 29 84 ¥190 ¥65

4821 Amory ................................ 1,803 1,819 ¥1 17 48 ¥182 ¥65

400 Attala County .................... 1,602 1,367 17 30 78 ¥160 ¥62

5920 Baldwyn ............................ 1,009 1,035 ¥3 21 52 ¥148 ¥60

2320 Bay St. Louis .................... 3,723 2,416 54 25 55 ¥120 ¥55

612 Benoit ................................ 477 300 59 55 94 ¥71 ¥41

500 Benton County .................. 1,739 1,291 35 33 86 ¥161 ¥62

2420 Biloxi ................................. 7,983 6,096 31 29 58 ¥100 ¥50

5921 Booneville .......................... 830 1,622 ¥49 19 46 ¥142 ¥59

4320 Brookhaven ....................... 3,865 3,218 20 31 59 ¥90 ¥47

700 Calhoun County ................ 2,789 2,509 11 24 65 ¥171 ¥63

4520 Canton .............................. 5,524 3,737 48 39 93 ¥138 ¥58

800 Carroll County ................... 2,014 1,270 59 24 76 ¥217 ¥68

900 Chickasaw County ............ 537 530 1 15 64 ¥327 ¥77

1000 Choctaw County ................ 2,052 1,929 6 29 64 ¥121 ¥55

1100 Claiborne County .............. 2,388 2,011 19 36 93 ¥158 ¥61

1420 Clarksdale ......................... 4,931 4,175 18 41 79 ¥93 ¥48

1300 Clay County ....................... 661 272 143 30 93 ¥210 ¥68

614 Cleveland .......................... 4,683 3,979 18 35 74 ¥111 ¥53

2521 Clinton .............................. 5,198 4,933 5 15 34 ¥127 ¥56
28

APPENDIX A.—SORTED BY DISTRICT NAME—Continued

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

1400 Coahoma County ............... 2,648 2,032 30 53 94 ¥77 ¥44

8111 Coffeeville ......................... 1,095 856 28 37 80 ¥116 ¥54

4620 Columbia ........................... 2,263 1,849 22 33 63 ¥91 ¥48

4420 Columbus .......................... 7,206 5,384 34 30 69 ¥130 ¥57

1500 Copiah County .................. 3,733 3,225 16 32 70 ¥119 ¥54

220 Corinth .............................. 2,328 1,722 35 32 58 ¥81 ¥45

1600 Covington County .............. 3,778 3,601 5 29 77 ¥166 ¥62

1700 DeSoto County ................... 17,611 18,909 ¥7 11 35 ¥218 ¥69

6720 Drew .................................. 1,133 924 23 39 86 ¥121 ¥55

2620 Durant ............................... 670 621 8 51 83 ¥63 ¥39

3111 East Jasper ....................... 1,767 1,300 36 28 86 ¥207 ¥67

6811 East Tallahatchie .............. 1,885 1,643 15 34 77 ¥126 ¥56

1211 Enterprise .......................... 675 870 ¥22 14 37 ¥164 ¥62

6220 Forest City ......................... 1,692 1,814 ¥7 34 67 ¥97 ¥49

1800 Forrest County ................... 2,405 2,546 ¥6 16 57 ¥256 ¥72

1900 Franklin County ................. 1,718 1,733 ¥1 35 64 ¥83 ¥45

2000 George County ................... 4,011 4,084 ¥2 24 46 ¥92 ¥48

2100 Greene County ................... 2,479 1,955 27 28 69 ¥146 ¥59

7620 Greenville .......................... 9,580 7,811 23 42 85 ¥102 ¥51

4220 Greenwood ......................... 4,267 3,864 10 44 85 ¥93 ¥48

2220 Grenada ............................ 4,539 4,583 ¥1 25 60 ¥140 ¥58

2421 Gulfport ............................. 7,421 6,778 9 26 61 ¥135 ¥57

2300 Hancock County ................ 3,558 4,134 ¥14 25 57 ¥128 ¥56

2400 Harrison County ................ 12,181 12,657 ¥4 21 50 ¥138 ¥58

1820 Hattiesburg ....................... 7,846 5,108 54 33 81 ¥145 ¥59

1520 Hazlehurst City ................. 2,332 1,818 28 33 86 ¥161 ¥62

2500 Hinds County .................... 5,307 5,969 ¥11 29 55 ¥90 ¥47

7611 Hollandale ......................... 1,343 1,188 13 50 93 ¥86 ¥46

4720 Holly Springs ..................... 2,428 1,820 33 33 82 ¥148 ¥60

2600 Holmes County .................. 4,616 4,088 13 56 97 ¥73 ¥42

920 Houston Separate ............. 2,062 1,941 6 23 61 ¥165 ¥62

2700 Humpreys County .............. 2,876 2,334 23 47 95 ¥102 ¥51

6721 Indianola ........................... 3,284 3,196 3 42 83 ¥98 ¥49

2900 Itawamba County .............. 3,676 3,708 ¥1 13 43 ¥231 ¥70

3000 Jackson County ................. 7,140 8,498 ¥16 13 35 ¥169 ¥63

2520 Jackson Public .................. 37,019 31,594 17 31 74 ¥139 ¥58

3300 Jeff.Davis Co ..................... 2,130 2,414 ¥12 44 87 ¥98 ¥49

3200 Jefferson Co ...................... 3,139 1,731 81 38 96 ¥153 ¥60

3400 Jones County ..................... 8,742 7,918 10 23 50 ¥117 ¥54

3500 Kemper County .................. 2,206 1,424 55 29 85 ¥193 ¥66

420 Kosciusko .......................... 1,981 2,158 ¥8 31 61 ¥97 ¥49

3600 Lafayette Co ...................... 2,354 2,073 14 17 50 ¥194 ¥66

3700 Lamar County ................... 6,007 6,570 ¥9 23 31 ¥35 ¥26

3800 Lauderdale Co ................... 6,911 6,715 3 19 45 ¥137 ¥58

3420 Laurel ................................ 3,645 3,338 9 38 79 ¥108 ¥52

3900 Lawrence Co ..................... 2,822 2,437 16 27 60 ¥122 ¥55

4000 Leake County .................... 3,947 3,143 26 30 67 ¥123 ¥55

4100 Lee County ........................ 5,442 5,945 ¥8 20 50 ¥150 ¥60

4200 Leflore County ................... 4,024 3,047 32 44 92 ¥109 ¥52

7612 Leland ............................... 2,109 1,471 43 43 86 ¥100 ¥50

4300 Lincoln County .................. 2,696 2,786 ¥3 22 44 ¥100 ¥50

2422 Long Beach ....................... 3,841 3,616 6 15 36 ¥140 ¥58

8020 Louisville ........................... 4,123 3,420 21 33 72 ¥118 ¥54

4400 Lowndes County ................ 5,074 5,602 ¥9 25 55 ¥120 ¥55

3711 Lumberton ......................... 1,116 991 13 37 70 ¥89 ¥47

4500 Madison ............................ 8,130 8,634 ¥6 18 40 ¥122 ¥55

4600 Marion County ................... 3,571 2,976 20 35 74 ¥111 ¥53

4700 Marshall County ................ 4,296 3,364 28 33 78 ¥136 ¥58

5720 McComb ............................ 3,726 2,992 25 41 80 ¥95 ¥49

3820 Meridian ............................ 7,990 7,129 12 35 76 ¥117 ¥54

4800 Monroe County .................. 2,439 2,653 ¥8 13 38 ¥192 ¥66

4900 Montgomery Co ................. 1,223 693 76 32 80 ¥150 ¥60

3020 Moss Point ........................ 6,420 5,233 23 24 68 ¥183 ¥65
29

APPENDIX A.—SORTED BY DISTRICT NAME—Continued

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

616 Mound Bayou .................... 1,032 882 17 47 93 ¥98 ¥49

130 Natchez-Adams ................. 6,997 5,180 35 35 86 ¥146 ¥59

5000 Neshoba County ................ 4,113 2,879 43 24 45 ¥88 ¥47

4111 Nettleton ........................... 1,351 1,392 ¥3 21 53 ¥152 ¥60

7320 New Albany ....................... 1,886 2,028 ¥7 22 48 ¥118 ¥54

5130 Newton City ....................... 2,168 1,212 79 22 65 ¥195 ¥66

5100 Newton County .................. 1,478 1,634 ¥10 27 46 ¥70 ¥41

613 North Bolivar ..................... 1,041 1,089 ¥4 56 97 ¥73 ¥42

5411 North Panola ..................... 2,807 2,080 35 42 89 ¥112 ¥53

5711 North Pike ......................... 1,495 1,622 ¥8 19 50 ¥163 ¥62

7011 North Tippah ..................... 1,290 1,332 ¥3 29 50 ¥72 ¥42

5200 Noxubee County ................ 2,901 2,354 23 44 89 ¥102 ¥51

3021 Ocean Springs .................. 4,354 4,851 ¥10 14 24 ¥71 ¥42

921 Okolona Separate .............. 1,272 940 35 24 85 ¥254 ¥72

5300 Oktibbeha Co .................... 2,082 1,420 47 34 81 ¥138 ¥58

3620 Oxford ................................ 2,725 3,031 ¥10 18 64 ¥256 ¥72

3022 Pascagoula ....................... 8,983 7,489 20 25 53 ¥112 ¥53

2423 Pass Christian .................. 1,810 1,788 1 23 51 ¥122 ¥55

6120 Pearl .................................. 4,737 4,144 14 13 38 ¥192 ¥66

5500 Pearl River ........................ 2,273 2,533 ¥10 26 51 ¥96 ¥49

5600 Perry County ...................... 1,801 1,409 28 30 66 ¥120 ¥55

1821 Petal .................................. 3,248 3,737 ¥13 16 32 ¥100 ¥50

5020 Philadelphia ...................... 1,472 1,275 15 33 62 ¥88 ¥47

5520 Picayune ............................ 4,506 3,920 15 27 61 ¥126 ¥56

5820 Pontotoc City ..................... 1,928 2,220 ¥13 19 43 ¥126 ¥56

5800 Pontotoc County ................ 2,751 2,920 ¥6 18 35 ¥94 ¥49

5530 Poplarville ......................... 2,135 2,114 1 27 53 ¥96 ¥49

5900 Prentiss County ................. 2,905 2,453 18 26 49 ¥88 ¥47

1212 Quitman ............................ 3,027 2,593 17 25 61 ¥144 ¥59

6000 Quitman County ................ 2,320 1,748 33 48 89 ¥85 ¥46

6100 Rankin County .................. 15,699 15,028 4 13 33 ¥154 ¥61

5620 Richton .............................. 849 952 ¥11 30 51 ¥70 ¥41

6200 Scott County ..................... 3,590 3,913 ¥8 25 64 ¥156 ¥61

6920 Senatobia .......................... 1,289 1,708 ¥25 24 46 ¥92 ¥48

615 Shaw ................................. 915 847 8 47 93 ¥98 ¥49

6400 Simpson County ................ 5,342 4,507 19 27 67 ¥148 ¥60

6500 Smith County .................... 3,026 3,146 ¥4 27 56 ¥107 ¥52

6312 South Delta ....................... 2,030 1,638 24 52 95 ¥83 ¥45

5412 South Panola .................... 4,539 4,577 ¥1 28 66 ¥136 ¥58

5712 South Pike ......................... 3,095 2,576 20 41 81 ¥98 ¥49

7012 South Tippah .................... 2,671 2,817 ¥5 19 47 ¥147 ¥60

5320 Starkville ........................... 4,111 4,108 0 27 64 ¥137 ¥58

6600 Stone County ..................... 2,528 2,650 ¥5 34 50 ¥47 ¥32

6700 Sunflower County .............. 2,904 2,156 35 49 87 ¥78 ¥44

6900 Tate County ....................... 3,470 3,278 6 24 62 ¥158 ¥61

7100 Tishomingo Co .................. 3,028 3,201 ¥5 20 46 ¥130 ¥57

7200 Tunica County ................... 2,133 1,999 7 44 86 ¥95 ¥49

4120 Tupelo ............................... 7,625 7,476 2 15 51 ¥240 ¥71

5131 Union City ......................... 793 814 ¥3 27 50 ¥85 ¥46

7300 Union County .................... 2,475 2,602 ¥5 14 37 ¥164 ¥62

7500 Vicksburg-Warren .............. 10,520 9,207 14 24 61 ¥154 ¥61

7400 Walthall Co ....................... 3,279 2,777 18 44 74 ¥68 ¥41

8113 Water Valley ...................... 1,318 1,347 ¥2 32 56 ¥75 ¥43

7700 Wayne County ................... 4,448 4,069 9 35 68 ¥94 ¥49

7800 Webster County ................. 2,064 2,017 2 25 50 ¥100 ¥50

611 West Bolivar ...................... 1,475 1,401 5 53 93 ¥75 ¥43

3112 West Jasper ....................... 2,125 1,864 14 28 69 ¥146 ¥59

1320 West Point ......................... 4,115 3,773 9 31 75 ¥142 ¥59

6812 West Tallahatchie ............. 1,611 1,447 11 49 92 ¥88 ¥47

7613 Western Line ..................... 2,763 2,386 16 27 75 ¥178 ¥64

7900 Wilkinson Co ..................... 1,962 1,726 14 47 89 ¥89 ¥47

4920 Winona .............................. 1,310 1,481 ¥12 36 59 ¥64 ¥39

8220 Yazoo City ......................... 2,825 3,201 ¥12 51 89 ¥75 ¥43
30

APPENDIX A.—SORTED BY DISTRICT NAME—Continued

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

8200 Yazoo County .................... 2,968 1,701 74 38 75 ¥97 ¥49

APPENDIX B.—SORTED BY PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN ENROLLMENT 

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

1300 Clay County ....................... 661 272 143 30 93 ¥210 ¥6

3200 Jefferson Co ...................... 3,139 1,731 81 38 96 ¥153 ¥6

5130 Newton City ....................... 2,168 1,212 79 22 65 ¥195 ¥6

4900 Montgomery Co ................. 1,223 693 76 32 80 ¥150 ¥6

8200 Yazoo County .................... 2,968 1,701 74 38 75 ¥97 ¥4

300 Amite County .................... 2,845 1,650 72 29 84 ¥190 ¥6

612 Benoit ................................ 477 300 59 55 94 ¥71 ¥4

800 Carroll County ................... 2,014 1,270 59 24 76 ¥217 ¥6

3500 Kemper County .................. 2,206 1,424 55 29 85 ¥193 ¥6

2320 Bay St. Louis .................... 3,723 2,416 54 25 55 ¥120 ¥5

1820 Hattiesburg ....................... 7,846 5,108 54 33 81 ¥145 ¥5

4520 Canton .............................. 5,524 3,737 48 39 93 ¥138 ¥5

5300 Oktibbeha Co .................... 2,082 1,420 47 34 81 ¥138 ¥5

7612 Leland ............................... 2,109 1,471 43 43 86 ¥100 ¥5

5000 Neshoba County ................ 4,113 2,879 43 24 45 ¥88 ¥4

3111 East Jasper ....................... 1,767 1,300 36 28 86 ¥207 ¥6

500 Benton County .................. 1,739 1,291 35 33 86 ¥161 ¥6

220 Corinth .............................. 2,328 1,722 35 32 58 ¥81 ¥4

130 Natchez-Adams ................. 6,997 5,180 35 35 86 ¥146 ¥5

5411 North Panola ..................... 2,807 2,080 35 42 89 ¥112 ¥5

921 Okolona Separate .............. 1,272 940 35 24 85 ¥254 ¥7

6700 Sunflower County .............. 2,904 2,156 35 49 87 ¥78 ¥4

4420 Columbus .......................... 7,206 5,384 34 30 69 ¥130 ¥5

4720 Holly Springs ..................... 2,428 1,820 33 33 82 ¥148 ¥6

6000 Quitman County ................ 2,320 1,748 33 48 89 ¥85 ¥4

4200 Leflore County ................... 4,024 3,047 32 44 92 ¥109 ¥5

2420 Biloxi ................................. 7,983 6,096 31 29 58 ¥100 ¥5

1400 Coahoma County ............... 2,648 2,032 30 53 94 ¥77 ¥4

8111 Coffeeville ......................... 1,095 856 28 37 80 ¥116 ¥5

1520 Hazlehurst City ................. 2,332 1,818 28 33 86 ¥161 ¥6

4700 Marshall County ................ 4,296 3,364 28 33 78 ¥136 ¥5

5600 Perry County ...................... 1,801 1,409 28 30 66 ¥120 ¥5

2100 Greene County ................... 2,479 1,955 27 28 69 ¥146 ¥5

4000 Leake County .................... 3,947 3,143 26 30 67 ¥123 ¥5

5720 McComb ............................ 3,726 2,992 25 41 80 ¥95 ¥4

6312 South Delta ....................... 2,030 1,638 24 52 95 ¥83 ¥4

6720 Drew .................................. 1,133 924 23 39 86 ¥121 ¥5

7620 Greenville .......................... 9,580 7,811 23 42 85 ¥102 ¥5

2700 Humpreys County .............. 2,876 2,334 23 47 95 ¥102 ¥5

3020 Moss Point ........................ 6,420 5,233 23 24 68 ¥183 ¥6

5200 Noxubee County ................ 2,901 2,354 23 44 89 ¥102 ¥5

4620 Columbia ........................... 2,263 1,849 22 33 63 ¥91 ¥4

8020 Louisville ........................... 4,123 3,420 21 33 72 ¥118 ¥5

4320 Brookhaven ....................... 3,865 3,218 20 31 59 ¥90 ¥4

4600 Marion County ................... 3,571 2,976 20 35 74 ¥111 ¥5

3022 Pascagoula ....................... 8,983 7,489 20 25 53 ¥112 ¥5

5712 South Pike ......................... 3,095 2,576 20 41 81 ¥98 ¥4

1100 Claiborne County .............. 2,388 2,011 19 36 93 ¥158 ¥6

6400 Simpson County ................ 5,342 4,507 19 27 67 ¥148 ¥6

4820 Aberdeen ........................... 2,569 2,169 18 33 79 ¥139 ¥5

1420 Clarksdale ......................... 4,931 4,175 18 41 79 ¥93 ¥4

614 Cleveland .......................... 4,683 3,979 18 35 74 ¥111 ¥5

5900 Prentiss County ................. 2,905 2,453 18 26 49 ¥88 ¥4

7400 Walthall Co ....................... 3,279 2,777 18 44 74 ¥68 ¥4
31

APPENDIX B.—SORTED BY PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN ENROLLMENT—Continued

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

400 Attala County .................... 1,602 1,367 17 30 78 ¥160 ¥6

2520 Jackson Public .................. 37,019 31,594 17 31 74 ¥139 ¥5

616 Mound Bayou .................... 1,032 882 17 47 93 ¥98 ¥4

1212 Quitman ............................ 3,027 2,593 17 25 61 ¥144 ¥5

1500 Copiah County .................. 3,733 3,225 16 32 70 ¥119 ¥5

3900 Lawrence Co ..................... 2,822 2,437 16 27 60 ¥122 ¥5

7613 Western Line ..................... 2,763 2,386 16 27 75 ¥178 ¥6

6811 East Tallahatchie .............. 1,885 1,643 15 34 77 ¥126 ¥5

5020 Philadelphia ...................... 1,472 1,275 15 33 62 ¥88 ¥4

5520 Picayune ............................ 4,506 3,920 15 27 61 ¥126 ¥5

3600 Lafayette Co ...................... 2,354 2,073 14 17 50 ¥194 ¥6

6120 Pearl .................................. 4,737 4,144 14 13 38 ¥192 ¥6

7500 Vicksburg-Warren .............. 10,520 9,207 14 24 61 ¥154 ¥6

3112 West Jasper ....................... 2,125 1,864 14 28 69 ¥146 ¥5

7900 Wilkinson Co ..................... 1,962 1,726 14 47 89 ¥89 ¥4

7611 Hollandale ......................... 1,343 1,188 13 50 93 ¥86 ¥4

2600 Holmes County .................. 4,616 4,088 13 56 97 ¥73 ¥4

3711 Lumberton ......................... 1,116 991 13 37 70 ¥89 ¥4

3820 Meridian ............................ 7,990 7,129 12 35 76 ¥117 ¥5

700 Calhoun County ................ 2,789 2,509 11 24 65 ¥171 ¥6

6812 West Tallahatchie ............. 1,611 1,447 11 49 92 ¥88 ¥4

4220 Greenwood ......................... 4,267 3,864 10 44 85 ¥93 ¥4

3400 Jones County ..................... 8,742 7,918 10 23 50 ¥117 ¥5

2421 Gulfport ............................. 7,421 6,778 9 26 61 ¥135 ¥5

3420 Laurel ................................ 3,645 3,338 9 38 79 ¥108 ¥5

7700 Wayne County ................... 4,448 4,069 9 35 68 ¥94 ¥4

1320 West Point ......................... 4,115 3,773 9 31 75 ¥142 ¥5

2620 Durant ............................... 670 621 8 51 83 ¥63 ¥3

615 Shaw ................................. 915 847 8 47 93 ¥98 ¥49

7200 Tunica County ................... 2,133 1,999 7 44 86 ¥95 ¥49

1000 Choctaw County ................ 2,052 1,929 6 29 64 ¥121 ¥55

920 Houston Separate ............. 2,062 1,941 6 23 61 ¥165 ¥62

2422 Long Beach ....................... 3,841 3,616 6 15 36 ¥140 ¥58

6900 Tate County ....................... 3,470 3,278 6 24 62 ¥158 ¥61

2521 Clinton .............................. 5,198 4,933 5 15 34 ¥127 ¥56

1600 Covington County .............. 3,778 3,601 5 29 77 ¥166 ¥62

611 West Bolivar ...................... 1,475 1,401 5 53 93 ¥75 ¥43

6100 Rankin County .................. 15,699 15,028 4 13 33 ¥154 ¥61

6721 Indianola ........................... 3,284 3,196 3 42 83 ¥98 ¥49

3800 Lauderdale Co ................... 6,911 6,715 3 19 45 ¥137 ¥58

4120 Tupelo ............................... 7,625 7,476 2 15 51 ¥240 ¥71

7800 Webster County ................. 2,064 2,017 2 25 50 ¥100 ¥50

900 Chickasaw County ............ 537 530 1 15 64 ¥327 ¥77

2423 Pass Christian .................. 1,810 1,788 1 23 51 ¥122 ¥55

5530 Poplarville ......................... 2,135 2,114 1 27 53 ¥96 ¥49

5320 Starkville ........................... 4,111 4,108 0 27 64 ¥137 ¥58

4821 Amory ................................ 1,803 1,819 ¥1 17 48 ¥182 ¥65

1900 Franklin County ................. 1,718 1,733 ¥1 35 64 ¥83 ¥45

2220 Grenada ............................ 4,539 4,583 ¥1 25 60 ¥140 ¥58

2900 Itawamba County .............. 3,676 3,708 ¥1 13 43 ¥231 ¥70

5412 South Panola .................... 4,539 4,577 ¥1 28 66 ¥136 ¥58

2000 George County ................... 4,011 4,084 ¥2 24 46 ¥92 ¥48

8113 Water Valley ...................... 1,318 1,347 ¥2 32 56 ¥75 ¥43

5920 Baldwyn ............................ 1,009 1,035 ¥3 21 52 ¥148 ¥60

4300 Lincoln County .................. 2,696 2,786 ¥3 22 44 ¥100 ¥50

4111 Nettleton ........................... 1,351 1,392 ¥3 21 53 ¥152 ¥60

7011 North Tippah ..................... 1,290 1,332 ¥3 29 50 ¥72 ¥42

5131 Union City ......................... 793 814 ¥3 27 50 ¥85 ¥46

200 Alcorn ................................ 3,634 3,800 ¥4 16 44 ¥175 ¥64

2400 Harrison County ................ 12,181 12,657 ¥4 21 50 ¥138 ¥58

613 North Bolivar ..................... 1,041 1,089 ¥4 56 97 ¥73 ¥42

6500 Smith County .................... 3,026 3,146 ¥4 27 56 ¥107 ¥52

7012 South Tippah .................... 2,671 2,817 ¥5 19 47 ¥147 ¥60
32

APPENDIX B.—SORTED BY PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN ENROLLMENT—Continued

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

6600 Stone County ..................... 2,528 2,650 ¥5 34 50 ¥47 ¥32

7100 Tishomingo Co .................. 3,028 3,201 ¥5 20 46 ¥130 ¥57

7300 Union County .................... 2,475 2,602 ¥5 14 37 ¥164 ¥62

1800 Forrest County ................... 2,405 2,546 ¥6 16 57 ¥256 ¥72

4500 Madison ............................ 8,130 8,634 ¥6 18 40 ¥122 ¥55

5800 Pontotoc County ................ 2,751 2,920 ¥6 18 35 ¥94 ¥49

1700 DeSoto County ................... 17,611 18,909 ¥7 11 35 ¥218 ¥69

6220 Forest City ......................... 1,692 1,814 ¥7 34 67 ¥97 ¥49

7320 New Albany ....................... 1,886 2,028 ¥7 22 48 ¥118 ¥54

420 Kosciusko .......................... 1,981 2,158 ¥8 31 61 ¥97 ¥49

4100 Lee County ........................ 5,442 5,945 ¥8 20 50 ¥150 ¥60

4800 Monroe County .................. 2,439 2,653 ¥8 13 38 ¥192 ¥66

5711 North Pike ......................... 1,495 1,622 ¥8 19 50 ¥163 ¥62

6200 Scott County ..................... 3,590 3,913 ¥8 25 64 ¥156 ¥61

3700 Lamar County ................... 6,007 6,570 ¥9 23 31 ¥35 ¥26

4400 Lowndes County ................ 5,074 5,602 ¥9 25 55 ¥120 ¥55

5100 Newton County .................. 1,478 1,634 ¥10 27 46 ¥70 ¥41

3021 Ocean Springs .................. 4,354 4,851 ¥10 14 24 ¥71 ¥42

3620 Oxford ................................ 2,725 3,031 ¥10 18 64 ¥256 ¥72

5500 Pearl River ........................ 2,273 2,533 ¥10 26 51 ¥96 ¥49

2500 Hinds County .................... 5,307 5,969 ¥11 29 55 ¥90 ¥47

5620 Richton .............................. 849 952 ¥11 30 51 ¥70 ¥41

3300 Jeff.Davis Co ..................... 2,130 2,414 ¥12 44 87 ¥98 ¥49

4920 Winona .............................. 1,310 1,481 ¥12 36 59 ¥64 ¥39

8220 Yazoo City ......................... 2,825 3,201 ¥12 51 89 ¥75 ¥43

1821 Petal .................................. 3,248 3,737 ¥13 16 32 ¥100 ¥50

5820 Pontotoc City ..................... 1,928 2,220 ¥13 19 43 ¥126 ¥56

2300 Hancock County ................ 3,558 4,134 ¥14 25 57 ¥128 ¥56

3000 Jackson County ................. 7,140 8,498 ¥16 13 35 ¥169 ¥63

1211 Enterprise .......................... 675 870 ¥22 14 37 ¥164 ¥62

6920 Senatobia .......................... 1,289 1,708 ¥25 24 46 ¥92 ¥48

5921 Booneville .......................... 830 1,622 ¥49 19 46 ¥142 ¥59

APPENDIX C.—SORTED BY PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN PROVERTY RATE 

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE pov Diff as percent FL 

part 

3700 Lamar County ................... 6,007 6,570 ¥9 23 31 ¥35 ¥26

6600 Stone County ..................... 2,528 2,650 ¥5 34 50 ¥47 ¥32

2620 Durant ............................... 670 621 8 51 83 ¥63 ¥39

4920 Winona .............................. 1,310 1,481 ¥12 36 59 ¥64 ¥39

612 Benoit ................................ 477 300 59 55 94 ¥71 ¥41

7400 Walthall Co ....................... 3,279 2,777 18 44 74 ¥68 ¥41

5100 Newton County .................. 1,478 1,634 ¥10 27 46 ¥70 ¥41

5620 Richton .............................. 849 952 ¥11 30 51 ¥70 ¥41

2600 Holmes County .................. 4,616 4,088 13 56 97 ¥73 ¥42

7011 North Tippah ..................... 1,290 1,332 ¥3 29 50 ¥72 ¥42

613 North Bolivar ..................... 1,041 1,089 ¥4 56 97 ¥73 ¥42

3021 Ocean Springs .................. 4,354 4,851 ¥10 14 24 ¥71 ¥42

611 West Bolivar ...................... 1,475 1,401 5 53 93 ¥75 ¥43

8113 Water Valley ...................... 1,318 1,347 ¥2 32 56 ¥75 ¥43

8220 Yazoo City ......................... 2,825 3,201 ¥12 51 89 ¥75 ¥43

6700 Sunflower County .............. 2,904 2,156 35 49 87 ¥78 ¥44

1400 Coahoma County ............... 2,648 2,032 30 53 94 ¥77 ¥44

220 Corinth .............................. 2,328 1,722 35 32 58 ¥81 ¥45

6312 South Delta ....................... 2,030 1,638 24 52 95 ¥83 ¥45

1900 Franklin County ................. 1,718 1,733 ¥1 35 64 ¥83 ¥45

6000 Quitman County ................ 2,320 1,748 33 48 89 ¥85 ¥46

7611 Hollandale ......................... 1,343 1,188 13 50 93 ¥86 ¥46

5131 Union City ......................... 793 814 ¥3 27 50 ¥85 ¥46
33

APPENDIX C.—SORTED BY PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN PROVERTY RATE—Continued

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

5000 Neshoba County ................ 4,113 2,879 43 24 45 ¥88 ¥47

4320 Brookhaven ....................... 3,865 3,218 20 31 59 ¥90 ¥47

5900 Prentiss County ................. 2,905 2,453 18 26 49 ¥88 ¥47

5020 Philadelphia ...................... 1,472 1,275 15 33 62 ¥88 ¥47

7900 Wilkinson Co ..................... 1,962 1,726 14 47 89 ¥89 ¥47

3711 Lumberton ......................... 1,116 991 13 37 70 ¥89 ¥47

6812 West Tallahatchie ............. 1,611 1,447 11 49 92 ¥88 ¥47

2500 Hinds County .................... 5,307 5,969 ¥11 29 55 ¥90 ¥47

4620 Columbia ........................... 2,263 1,849 22 33 63 ¥91 ¥48

1420 Clarksdale ......................... 4,931 4,175 18 41 79 ¥93 ¥48

4220 Greenwood ......................... 4,267 3,864 10 44 85 ¥93 ¥48

2000 George County ................... 4,011 4,084 ¥2 24 46 ¥92 ¥48

6920 Senatobia .......................... 1,289 1,708 ¥25 24 46 ¥92 ¥48

8200 Yazoo County .................... 2,968 1,701 74 38 75 ¥97 ¥49

5720 McComb ............................ 3,726 2,992 25 41 80 ¥95 ¥49

5712 South Pike ......................... 3,095 2,576 20 41 81 ¥98 ¥49

616 Mound Bayou .................... 1,032 882 17 47 93 ¥98 ¥49

7700 Wayne County ................... 4,448 4,069 9 35 68 ¥94 ¥49

615 Shaw ................................. 915 847 8 47 93 ¥98 ¥49

7200 Tunica County ................... 2,133 1,999 7 44 86 ¥95 ¥49

6721 Indianola ........................... 3,284 3,196 3 42 83 ¥98 ¥49

5530 Poplarville ......................... 2,135 2,114 1 27 53 ¥96 ¥49

5800 Pontotoc County ................ 2,751 2,920 ¥6 18 35 ¥94 ¥49

6220 Forest City ......................... 1,692 1,814 ¥7 34 67 ¥97 ¥49

420 Kosciusko .......................... 1,981 2,158 ¥8 31 61 ¥97 ¥49

5500 Pearl River ........................ 2,273 2,533 ¥10 26 51 ¥96 ¥49

3300 Jeff.Davis Co ..................... 2,130 2,414 ¥12 44 87 ¥98 ¥49

7612 Leland ............................... 2,109 1,471 43 43 86 ¥100 ¥50

2420 Biloxi ................................. 7,983 6,096 31 29 58 ¥100 ¥50

7800 Webster County ................. 2,064 2,017 2 25 50 ¥100 ¥50

4300 Lincoln County .................. 2,696 2,786 ¥3 22 44 ¥100 ¥50

1821 Petal .................................. 3,248 3,737 ¥13 16 32 ¥100 ¥50

7620 Greenville .......................... 9,580 7,811 23 42 85 ¥102 ¥51

2700 Humpreys County .............. 2,876 2,334 23 47 95 ¥102 ¥51

5200 Noxubee County ................ 2,901 2,354 23 44 89 ¥102 ¥51

4200 Leflore County ................... 4,024 3,047 32 44 92 ¥109 ¥52

3420 Laurel ................................ 3,645 3,338 9 38 79 ¥108 ¥52

6500 Smith County .................... 3,026 3,146 ¥4 27 56 ¥107 ¥52

5411 North Panola ..................... 2,807 2,080 35 42 89 ¥112 ¥53

4600 Marion County ................... 3,571 2,976 20 35 74 ¥111 ¥53

3022 Pascagoula ....................... 8,983 7,489 20 25 53 ¥112 ¥53

614 Cleveland .......................... 4,683 3,979 18 35 74 ¥111 ¥53

8111 Coffeeville ......................... 1,095 856 28 37 80 ¥116 ¥54

8020 Louisville ........................... 4,123 3,420 21 33 72 ¥118 ¥54

1500 Copiah County .................. 3,733 3,225 16 32 70 ¥119 ¥54

3820 Meridian ............................ 7,990 7,129 12 35 76 ¥117 ¥54

3400 Jones County ..................... 8,742 7,918 10 23 50 ¥117 ¥54

7320 New Albany ....................... 1,886 2,028 ¥7 22 48 ¥118 ¥54

2320 Bay St. Louis .................... 3,723 2,416 54 25 55 ¥120 ¥55

5600 Perry County ...................... 1,801 1,409 28 30 66 ¥120 ¥55

4000 Leake County .................... 3,947 3,143 26 30 67 ¥123 ¥55

6720 Drew .................................. 1,133 924 23 39 86 ¥121 ¥55

3900 Lawrence Co ..................... 2,822 2,437 16 27 60 ¥122 ¥55

1000 Choctaw County ................ 2,052 1,929 6 29 64 ¥121 ¥55

2423 Pass Christian .................. 1,810 1,788 1 23 51 ¥122 ¥55

4500 Madison ............................ 8,130 8,634 ¥6 18 40 ¥122 ¥55

4400 Lowndes County ................ 5,074 5,602 ¥9 25 55 ¥120 ¥55

6811 East Tallahatchie .............. 1,885 1,643 15 34 77 ¥126 ¥56

5520 Picayune ............................ 4,506 3,920 15 27 61 ¥126 ¥56

2521 Clinton .............................. 5,198 4,933 5 15 34 ¥127 ¥56

5820 Pontotoc City ..................... 1,928 2,220 ¥13 19 43 ¥126 ¥56

2300 Hancock County ................ 3,558 4,134 ¥14 25 57 ¥128 ¥56

4420 Columbus .......................... 7,206 5,384 34 30 69 ¥130 ¥57
34

APPENDIX C.—SORTED BY PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN PROVERTY RATE—Continued

DIST District name USDE/N517 K–12/Enrol 

Diff as percent of 

enrol 

USDE/percent pov Percent FL 

partic 

Diff as percent USDE 

pov 

Diff as percent FL 

part 

2421 Gulfport ............................. 7,421 6,778 9 26 61 ¥135 ¥57

7100 Tishomingo Co .................. 3,028 3,201 ¥5 20 46 ¥130 ¥57

4520 Canton .............................. 5,524 3,737 48 39 93 ¥138 ¥58

5300 Oktibbeha Co .................... 2,082 1,420 47 34 81 ¥138 ¥58

4700 Marshall County ................ 4,296 3,364 28 33 78 ¥136 ¥58

4820 Aberdeen ........................... 2,569 2,169 18 33 79 ¥139 ¥58

2520 Jackson Public .................. 37,019 31,594 17 31 74 ¥139 ¥58

2422 Long Beach ....................... 3,841 3,616 6 15 36 ¥140 ¥58

3800 Lauderdale Co ................... 6,911 6,715 3 19 45 ¥137 ¥58

5320 Starkville ........................... 4,111 4,108 ................ 27 64 ¥137 ¥58

2220 Grenada ............................ 4,539 4,583 ¥1 25 60 ¥140 ¥58

5412 South Panola .................... 4,539 4,577 ¥1 28 66 ¥136 ¥58

2400 Harrison County ................ 12,181 12,657 ¥4 21 50 ¥138 ¥58

1820 Hattiesburg ....................... 7,846 5,108 54 33 81 ¥145 ¥59

130 Natchez-Adams ................. 6,997 5,180 35 35 86 ¥146 ¥59

2100 Greene County ................... 2,479 1,955 27 28 69 ¥146 ¥59

1212 Quitman ............................ 3,027 2,593 17 25 61 ¥144 ¥59

3112 West Jasper ....................... 2,125 1,864 14 28 69 ¥146 ¥59

1320 West Point ......................... 4,115 3,773 9 31 75 ¥142 ¥59

5921 Booneville .......................... 830 1,622 ¥49 19 46 ¥142 ¥59

3200 Jefferson Co ...................... 3,139 1,731 81 38 96 ¥153 ¥60

4900 Montgomery Co ................. 1,223 693 76 32 80 ¥150 ¥60

4720 Holly Springs ..................... 2,428 1,820 33 33 82 ¥148 ¥60

6400 Simpson County ................ 5,342 4,507 19 27 67 ¥148 ¥60

5920 Baldwyn ............................ 1,009 1,035 ¥3 21 52 ¥148 ¥60

4111 Nettleton ........................... 1,351 1,392 ¥3 21 53 ¥152 ¥60

7012 South Tippah .................... 2,671 2,817 ¥5 19 47 ¥147 ¥60

4100 Lee County ........................ 5,442 5,945 ¥8 20 50 ¥150 ¥60

1100 Claiborne County .............. 2,388 2,011 19 36 93 ¥158 ¥61

7500 Vicksburg-Warren .............. 10,520 9,207 14 24 61 ¥154 ¥61

6900 Tate County ....................... 3,470 3,278 6 24 62 ¥158 ¥61

6100 Rankin County .................. 15,699 15,028 4 13 33 ¥154 ¥61

6200 Scott County ..................... 3,590 3,913 ¥8 25 64 ¥156 ¥61

500 Benton County .................. 1,739 1,291 35 33 86 ¥161 ¥62

1520 Hazlehurst City ................. 2,332 1,818 28 33 86 ¥161 ¥62

400 Attala County .................... 1,602 1,367 17 30 78 ¥160 ¥62

920 Houston Separate ............. 2,062 1,941 6 23 61 ¥165 ¥62

1600 Covington County .............. 3,778 3,601 5 29 77 ¥166 ¥62

7300 Union County .................... 2,475 2,602 ¥5 14 37 ¥164 ¥62

5711 North Pike ......................... 1,495 1,622 ¥8 19 50 ¥163 ¥62

1211 Enterprise .......................... 675 870 ¥22 14 37 ¥164 ¥62

700 Calhoun County ................ 2,789 2,509 11 24 65 ¥171 ¥63

3000 Jackson County ................. 7,140 8,498 ¥16 13 35 ¥169 ¥63

7613 Western Line ..................... 2,763 2,386 16 27 75 ¥178 ¥64

200 Alcorn ................................ 3,634 3,800 ¥4 16 44 ¥175 ¥64

300 Amite County .................... 2,845 1,650 72 29 84 ¥190 ¥65

3020 Moss Point ........................ 6,420 5,233 23 24 68 ¥183 ¥65

4821 Amory ................................ 1,803 1,819 ¥1 17 48 ¥182 ¥65

5130 Newton City ....................... 2,168 1,212 79 22 65 ¥195 ¥66

3500 Kemper County .................. 2,206 1,424 55 29 85 ¥193 ¥66

3600 Lafayette Co ...................... 2,354 2,073 14 17 50 ¥194 ¥66

6120 Pearl .................................. 4,737 4,144 14 13 38 ¥192 ¥66

4800 Monroe County .................. 2,439 2,653 ¥8 13 38 ¥192 ¥66

3111 East Jasper ....................... 1,767 1,300 36 28 86 ¥207 ¥67

1300 Clay County ....................... 661 272 143 30 93 ¥210 ¥68

800 Carroll County ................... 2,014 1,270 59 24 76 ¥217 ¥68

1700 DeSoto County ................... 17,611 18,909 ¥7 11 35 ¥218 ¥69

2900 Itawamba County .............. 3,676 3,708 ¥1 13 43 ¥231 ¥70

4120 Tupelo ............................... 7,625 7,476 2 15 51 ¥240 ¥71

921 Okolona Separate .............. 1,272 940 35 24 85 ¥254 ¥72

1800 Forrest County ................... 2,405 2,546 ¥6 16 57 ¥256 ¥72

3620 Oxford ................................ 2,725 3,031 ¥10 18 64 ¥256 ¥72

900 Chickasaw County ............ 537 530 1 15 64 ¥327 ¥77
35

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Additional material submitted is being retained in the subcommittee files.]

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator COCHRAN. Let me say, again, thank you to all of you and 

to my staff, Ann Copland and others, Win Ellington, who’s here, 

Rachel Spence, and Mark Laisch is the staff member of the subcommittee who works directly for Senator Specter, who’s chairman 

of the subcommittee, who’s here and has been helpful to us, as 

well. Thank you all for attending. 

Thank you all very much for being here, that concludes our hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the 

Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., Friday, April 20, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

Æ