Comparability of State and Local Expenditures 

Among Schools Within Districts: A Report From

the Study of School-Level Expenditures

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
This page intentionally left blank 
Comparability of State and Local Expenditures 

Among Schools Within Districts: 

A Report From the Study of School-Level Expenditures 

Ruth Heuer 

RTI International 

Stephanie Stullich 

U.S. Department of Education 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2011 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-04-CO0036/0002/0017 with RTI International. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the 

positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of 

Education is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Carmel Martin 

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Stuart Kerachsky 

Director

November 2011 

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with 

permission and copyright, 2011, iStockphoto. Authorization to reproduce the report in whole or in part is 

granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program 

Studies Service, Comparability of State and Local Expenditures Among Schools Within Districts: A Report 

From the Study of School-Level Expenditures, by Ruth Heuer and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, D.C., 

2011. 

To obtain copies of this report: 

Write to ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, NTIS, P.O. Box 22207, 

Alexandria, VA 22304. 

Or fax your request to 703-605-6794. 

Or e-mail your request to edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

Or call in your request toll free to 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). Those who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734. If 

877 service is not available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). 

Or order online at http://edpubs.ed.gov. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print or computer 

diskette. For more information, contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 

202-260-0818. 

Content Contact: 

Stephanie Stullich 

202-401-2342 

Stephanie.Stullich@ed.gov
Contents 

List of Exhibits ................................................................................................................................ v

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

The Title I Comparability Requirement ..................................................................................2

Previous Research Findings ....................................................................................................4

ARRA Requirement to Collect School-Level Expenditure Data .............................................5

Study Design ...........................................................................................................................5

Study Limitations and Data Quality Issues ..................................................................................... 9

Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 15

Comparing Per-Pupil Personnel Expenditures Across All Schools Within a District ..........15

Number of Districts Included in Within-District Expenditure Comparisons .......................17

Comparing Expenditures Between Title I and Non–Title I Schools ....................................18

Comparing Expenditures Between Higher-Poverty and Lower-Poverty Schools ................22

Extent to Which Individual Higher-Need Schools Have Below-Average Expenditures .....25

Patterns for Other Expenditure Definitions ..........................................................................27

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 29

References ..................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A: Data Reporting Instructions .................................................................................... 33

Appendix B: Statutory Language for Title I Comparability Requirement: Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, Title I, Section 1120A ........................................................................ 45

Appendix C: Supplemental Exhibits ............................................................................................. 47

 

Contents iii 
Contents iv 

This page intentionally left blank 
Exhibits 

1. Types of expenditures that were included and excluded from the expenditure 

definitions used for the study of school-level expenditures ................................................ 7

2. Number of states that indicated that they included and excluded various types of 

expenditures in reporting school-level expenditures, 2008–09 ........................................ 10

3. Percentage of all schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel 

expenditures, compared with the average for their district, overall and by school 

grade level, 2008–09 ......................................................................................................... 16

4. Number of Title I districts that were included in comparability analyses, overall 

and by school grade level, 2008–09 .................................................................................. 17

5. Percentage of Title I schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and 

above the average for non–Title I schools in their district, overall and by school 

grade level, 2008–09 ......................................................................................................... 18

6. Percentage of Title I schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel 

expenditures, compared with the average for non–Title I schools in their district, 

overall and by school grade level, 2008–09 ...................................................................... 19

7. Percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures below and above the average for their non–Title I schools, overall 

and by school grade level, 2008–09 .................................................................................. 20

8. Percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had lower and higher perpupil personnel expenditures, on average, than non–Title I schools, overall and by 

school grade level, 2008–09 ............................................................................................. 21

9. Percentage of higher-poverty schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures 

below and above the average for lower-poverty schools in their district, overall 

and by school grade level, 2008–09 .................................................................................. 22

10. Percentage of higher-poverty schools that had lower and higher per-pupil 

personnel expenditures, compared with the average for lower-poverty schools in 

their district, overall and by school grade level, 2008–09 ................................................ 23

11. Percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures below and above the average for schools in their district’s 

lowest-poverty quartile, overall and by school grade level, 2008–09 .............................. 24

12. Percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that had lower 

and higher per-pupil personnel expenditures, compared with the average for 

schools in their district’s lowest-poverty quartile, overall and by school grade 

level, 2008–09 ................................................................................................................... 25

13. Percentage of Title I districts in which at least one higher-need school had perpupil personnel expenditures below its district’s average for lower-need schools, 

overall and by school grade level, 2008–09 ...................................................................... 26

Exhibits v 
14. Percentage of Title I schools that had lower per-pupil expenditures than the 

average for non–Title I schools in their district, by type of expenditure and grade 

level, 2008–09 ................................................................................................................... 27

15. Percentage of higher-poverty schools that had lower per-pupil expenditures than 

the average for lower-poverty schools in their district, by type of expenditure and 

grade level, 2008–09 ......................................................................................................... 28

C-1. Number of school districts and schools for which school expenditure and 

enrollment data were reported and number that were included in the analyses in 

this report, 2008–09 .......................................................................................................... 47

C-2. Districts and schools excluded from analysis, 2008–09 ................................................... 47

C-3. Number and percentage of schools with expenditure data and demographic data, 

2008–09............................................................................................................................. 48

C-4. Descriptive statistics for school-level expenditure dataset, 2008–09 ............................... 48

C-5. Descriptive statistics for school-level per-pupil expenditure amounts for various 

expenditure types and levels, 2008–09 ............................................................................. 48

C-6. Distribution of schools that had personnel expenditure data, by amount of 

personnel expenditures per pupil, 2008–09 ...................................................................... 49

C-7. Average personnel expenditures per pupil, overall and by school grade level, 

2008–09............................................................................................................................. 49

C-8. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which personnel expenditure levels 

were higher for high schools or middle schools than for elementary schools, 

2008–09............................................................................................................................. 50

C-9. Number of Title I districts that were included in comparability analyses, overall 

and by school grade level, 2008–09 .................................................................................. 50

C-10. Number and percentage of schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures 

below and above the average for schools in their district, 2008–09 ................................. 51

C-11. Number and percentage of schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel 

expenditures, compared with the average for schools in their district, 2008–09 .............. 51

C-12. Number and percentage of Title I schools that had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures below and above the average for non–Title I schools in their district, 

2008–09............................................................................................................................. 52

C-13. Number and percentage of Title I schools that had lower and higher per-pupil 

personnel expenditures, compared with the average for non–Title I schools in 

their district, 2008–09 ....................................................................................................... 52

C-14. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures below and above the average for their non–Title I schools, 

2008–09............................................................................................................................. 53

C-15. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had lower and 

higher personnel expenditures per pupil than non–Title I schools, 2008–09 ................... 53

Exhibits vi 
C-16. Number and percentage of higher-poverty schools that had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures below and above the average for lower-poverty schools in their 

district, 2008–09 ............................................................................................................... 54

C-17. Number and percentage of higher-poverty schools that had lower and higher 

per-pupil personnel expenditures, compared with the average for lower-poverty 

schools in their district, 2008–09 ...................................................................................... 54

C-18. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which higher-poverty schools had 

per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the average for their lowerpoverty schools, 2008–09 ................................................................................................. 55

C-19. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which higher-poverty schools had 

lower and higher per-pupil personnel expenditures than their lower-poverty 

schools, 2008–09............................................................................................................... 55

C-20. Number and percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that 

had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the average for schools in 

their district’s lowest-poverty quartile, 2008–09 .............................................................. 56

C-21. Number and percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that 

had lower and higher per-pupil personnel expenditures, compared with the 

average for schools in their district’s lowest-poverty quartile, 2008–09 .......................... 56

C-22. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which schools in the district’s highestpoverty quartile had per-pupil personnel expenditures that were below and above 

the average for schools in the district’s lowest-poverty quartile, 2008–09 ...................... 57

C-23. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which schools in the district’s 

highest-poverty quartile had lower and higher per-pupil personnel expenditures 

than schools in the district’s lowest-poverty quartile, 2008–09 ....................................... 57

C-24. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which one or more higher-need 

schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures below their district’s average for 

lower-need schools, 2008–09 ............................................................................................ 58

C-25. Percentage of Title I schools that had lower per-pupil expenditures, compared 

with the average for non–Title I schools, by type of expenditure and grade level, 

2008–09............................................................................................................................. 59

C-26. Percentage of higher-poverty schools that had lower per-pupil expenditures, 

compared with the average for lower-poverty schools, by type of expenditure and 

grade level, 2008–09 ......................................................................................................... 60

C-27. Percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had lower per-pupil 

expenditures than non–Title I schools, on average, by type of expenditure and 

school grade level, 2008–09 ............................................................................................. 61

C-28. Percentage of Title I districts in which higher-poverty schools had lower per-pupil 

expenditures than lower-poverty schools, on average, by type of expenditure and 

school grade level, 2008–09 ............................................................................................. 62

 

Exhibits vii 
Exhibits viii 

This page intentionally left blank 
Executive Summary ix 

Executive Summary 

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) requires that, taken as a 

whole, services provided in Title I schools from state and local funds be at least comparable to 

those provided in non–Title I schools (Section 1120A). The purpose of this comparability 

requirement is to ensure that federal assistance is providing additional resources in high-need 

schools rather than compensating for an inequitable distribution of funds that benefits more 

affluent schools. The Title I comparability requirement allows school districts to demonstrate 

compliance in a number of ways, including through a district-wide salary schedule, and does not 

require districts to use school-level expenditures. Several recent policy reports have called for 

revising the Title I comparability provision to require comparability of actual school-level 

expenditures (Hall and Ushomirsky, 2010; Miller, 2010; Luebchow, 2009; Roza, 2008). 

Until recently, data on school-level expenditures have not been widely available, in part because 

most school districts have not designed their accounting systems to track revenues and 

expenditures at the school level. However, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA) required each school district receiving Title I, Part A, ARRA funds to report a school-byschool listing of per-pupil education expenditures from state and local funds for the 2008–09 

school year to its state education agency and required states to report these data to the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

This report from the Study of School-Level Expenditures presents findings on how state and 

local education expenditures at the school level vary within school districts. This study is not 

examining compliance with the current Title I comparability requirement, nor does it examine 

the comparability of resources between districts. Rather, it focuses on the question of whether 

Title I schools and higher-poverty schools have comparable levels of per-pupil expenditures as 

non–Title I schools and lower-poverty schools within the same district. More specifically, this 

report examines three questions: 

• To what extent do Title I schools have lower per-pupil expenditures from state and local 

funds, compared with non–Title I schools in their district? 

• To what extent do higher-poverty schools in Title I districts have lower per-pupil 

expenditures from state and local funds, compared with lower-poverty schools in their 

district? 

• Does the extent to which Title I schools and higher-poverty schools receive lower levels 

of state and local funding vary for different types of expenditures? 

Study Design and Limitations 

To implement the ARRA school expenditure reporting requirement, the Study of School-Level 

Expenditures asked states to report school-by-school data on four types of expenditures: total 

personnel salaries for all school-level instructional and support staff; salaries for instructional 

staff; salaries for teachers; and non-personnel expenditures (if available). In an effort to 

maximize the consistency of the expenditure data across states and districts, the study provided 

guidelines describing the specific types of expenditures that states and districts should follow to 
Executive Summary x 

the extent possible. States and districts were asked to report school-level expenditures from state 

and local funds only (i.e., excluding expenditures from federal program funds) and to exclude 

expenditures for special education, adult education, school nutrition programs, summer school, 

preschool, and employee benefits. 

All states submitted school-by-school expenditure data in response to the ARRA requirement, and 

the resulting dataset used for this report includes a total of 82,993 schools and 13,225 districts. 

Most states conducted a special data collection to obtain these data from their school districts, 

although some states indicated that they were able to meet the ARRA requirement with data they 

had previously collected from districts. Some schools were removed from the analysis because 

their reported expenditures were extremely low or extremely high. One state included federal 

funds in its reported data and was therefore excluded from the analysis. Overall, however, the 

dataset compiled for this study includes the large majority of public school districts and schools 

across the nation. 

Because school districts typically do not have accounting systems that track expenditures at the 

school level and this was the first time such data have ever been collected on a large-scale basis, 

this effort faced challenges that may affect the accuracy and consistency of the data reported. 

Most states reported that they were able to submit school expenditure data that were consistent 

with the above specifications, but some states indicated some divergence from these preferred 

specifications. In addition, it is possible that school districts did not always follow their state’s 

instructions for reporting school expenditure data, and the data may not be consistently defined 

or reported across districts within each state. In particular, the data reported for non-personnel 

expenditures show very wide variations across districts and states and appear more likely to be 

defined inconsistently across sites. However, differences between states or between districts in 

the expenditure categories used for reporting school-level expenditures are not a significant 

problem for the within-district analyses conducted for this report as long as each district applied 

consistent definitions across all of the schools for which it reported expenditure data. 

Key Findings 

Per-pupil personnel expenditures often varied considerably across schools 

within districts, and nearly half of all schools had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures that were more than 10 percent above or below their district’s 

average. Some, but not all, of these differences were related to school 

grade level. 

Across all districts and schools (including both Title I and non–Title I schools), 47 percent of 

schools had state and local personnel expenditures per pupil that were more than 10 percent 

above or below their district’s average. However, some expenditure differences were related to 

school grade level: these data show that high schools and middle schools tended to have higher 

per-pupil personnel expenditures than elementary schools in their districts. After controlling for 

school grade level by examining expenditure patterns separately for elementary schools, middle 

schools, and high schools, the percentage of schools with state and local personnel expenditures 

per pupil that were more than 10 percent above or below their district’s average for their school 

grade level was 36 percent for elementary schools, 30 percent for middle schools, and 42 percent 

for high schools. 
Executive Summary xi 

Among the 9,178 districts that had at least one elementary school and one high school, 

70 percent of districts had higher state and local personnel expenditures per pupil in their high 

schools than in their elementary schools. Because of these differences in average per-pupil 

personnel expenditures by school grade level, and because most districts do not have both Title I 

and non–Title I schools at the same school grade level, comparing expenditures across all Title I 

and non–Title I schools without regard to grade span may be misleading. Therefore, this analysis 

focuses on examining expenditures separately for elementary schools, middle schools, and high 

schools. 

Within-district comparability analyses were relevant for a relatively small 

proportion of school districts, but these districts accounted for a large 

proportion of students. 

Many districts did not have at least two schools, either overall or at a particular school grade 

level. In many additional districts, all elementary schools were Title I schools, and all middle 

schools and high schools were non–Title I schools. For this reason, out of a total of 13,225 Title I 

districts in the 2008–09 dataset, the study was able to compare expenditures in the Title I schools 

with non–Title I schools in just 2,700 districts at the elementary school level, 859 districts at the 

middle school level, and 426 districts at the high school level. 

Analyses comparing higher-poverty and lower-poverty schools were able to include larger 

numbers of districts: 5,490 districts at the elementary school level, 2,572 districts at the middle 

school level, and 1,956 districts at the high school level. These analyses defined higher-poverty 

schools as those with a poverty rate above the district average for that school grade level and 

defined lower-poverty schools as those below the district average.1

Overall, 6,129 districts (46 percent) were included in one or more of the comparability analyses 

conducted by school grade level. These districts accounted for 92 percent of all students in the 

Title I districts included in this dataset. 

Within districts that had both Title I and non–Title I schools, more than 40 

percent of Title I schools had lower personnel expenditures per pupil than 

did non–Title I schools at the same school grade level. 

At the elementary level, 46 percent of Title I schools had state and local personnel expenditures 

per pupil that were below the average for non–Title I elementary schools in their district, while 

54 percent were above the average for non–Title I elementary schools. At the middle school and 

high school levels, Title I schools were slightly less likely to have below-average personnel 

expenditures per pupil (42 percent and 45 percent, respectively). 

Looking at the percentage of districts rather than the percentage of schools yields similar results. 

At the elementary level, among districts with at least one Title I school and one non–Title I 

school at that school grade level, 47 percent of the Title I districts had lower personnel 

expenditures per pupil in their Title I elementary schools than in their non–Title I elementary 

schools. This percentage was about the same for middle schools (46 percent) but lower for high 

schools (39 percent). 

 

1

 School poverty rate was based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 
Executive Summary xii 

Similarly, more than one-third of higher-poverty schools (above their 

district’s poverty average) had lower per-pupil personnel expenditures than 

lower-poverty schools in their districts at the same school grade level. 

At the elementary level, 42 percent of the higher-poverty schools had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures that were below the average for lower-poverty elementary schools in their district, 

while 58 percent were above the lower-poverty schools’ average. At the middle school and high 

school levels, higher-poverty schools were less likely to have below-average personnel 

expenditures per pupil (38 percent and 34 percent, respectively). 

The study also compared “higher-poverty” and “lower-poverty” schools based on school poverty 

quartiles—that is, by comparing the highest-poverty quartile of schools within each district to the 

lowest-poverty quartile of schools. The poverty quartile approach showed a smaller proportion of 

higher-poverty schools as having lower per-pupil personnel expenditures than lower-poverty 

schools in their district, compared with the analysis based on the district average poverty rate. 

Most Title I districts had at least one Title I school with per-pupil personnel 

expenditures below the district average for non–Title I schools at the same 

school grade level. 

At the elementary level, 74 percent of Title I districts with at least one Title I and one non–Title I 

school had at least one Title I school with per-pupil personnel expenditures that were below their 

district’s average for non–Title I elementary schools. These percentages were lower for middle 

schools (59 percent) and high schools (54 percent). 

Looking at expenditures by school poverty level shows similar patterns. Sixty-three percent of 

districts with two or more elementary schools had at least one higher-poverty school with perpupil personnel expenditures that were below the district’s average for lower-poverty schools. 

Again, the percentages were lower for middle schools (55 percent) and high schools (47 percent). 

Other expenditure categories examined in this study resulted in an 

increase in the percentages of Title I schools that had expenditures below 

their district’s averages for non–Title I schools at the same school grade 

level. 

In addition to collecting data on salary expenditures for all school-level instructional staff and 

instructional support staff, this study also collected data on three other categories of 

expenditures: instructional staff salaries only, teacher salaries only, and non-personnel 

expenditures. At the elementary school level, 46 percent of Title I schools had lower total 

personnel expenditures per pupil than the average for non–Title I schools in their district, 

compared with 49 percent for expenditures on instructional staff salaries, 50 percent for 

expenditures on teacher salaries, and 54 percent for non-personnel expenditures. 
Introduction 1 

Introduction 

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) requires that schools 

receiving funds under Title I receive state- and locally-funded services that, taken as a whole, are 

at least comparable to the state- and locally-funded services provided to non–Title I schools 

(Section 1120A). The purpose of this comparability requirement is to ensure that federal 

assistance is not compensating for an inequitable distribution of state and local funds that 

benefits more affluent schools. The Title I comparability requirement allows school districts to 

demonstrate compliance in a number of ways, including through a district-wide salary schedule, 

policies to ensure equivalence among schools in certain types of resources, student/instructional 

staff ratios, and other measures, and does not require districts to use school-level expenditures. 

Previous research in selected school districts has found inequities in the distribution of funds 

within some districts. For example, Roza and Hill (2005) found that four out of five urban school 

districts studied spent less on their highest-poverty schools than on their lowest-poverty schools. 

However, no large-scale national evaluation has examined this issue. Several recent policy 

reports have called for revising the Title I comparability provision to focus on school-level 

expenditures (Hall and Ushomirsky, 2010; Miller, 2010; Luebchow, 2009; Roza, 2008). 

Until recently, data on school-level expenditures have not been widely available, in part because 

most school districts have not designed their accounting systems to track revenues and 

expenditures at the school level. However, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA) required each school district receiving Title I, Part A, ARRA funds to report a school-byschool listing of per-pupil education expenditures from state and local funds for the 2008–09 

school year to its state education agency (SEA) and required states to report these data to the 

U.S. Department of Education (“the Department”). The Department collected these data through 

the Study of School-Level Expenditures, and findings from that study are presented in this 

report. 

This study is not examining compliance with the current Title I comparability requirement, nor 

does it examine the comparability of resources between districts. Rather, it focuses on the 

question of whether Title I schools and higher-poverty schools have comparable levels of perpupil expenditures as non–Title I schools and lower-poverty schools within the same district. 

More specifically, this report examines three questions: 

• To what extent do Title I schools have lower per-pupil expenditures from state and local 

funds, compared with non–Title I schools in their district? 

• To what extent do higher-poverty schools in Title I districts have lower per-pupil 

expenditures from state and local funds, compared with lower-poverty schools in their 

district? 

• Does the extent to which Title I schools and higher-poverty schools receive lower levels 

of state and local funding vary for different types of expenditures? 
Introduction 2 

The Title I Comparability Requirement 

A Title I program guide issued in 1968 by the Office of Education in the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare contained the first mention of a comparability “expectation”; this 

program guide stated: 

It is expected that services provided within the district with state and local funds will be 

made available to all attendance areas to all children without discrimination. The 

instructional and ancillary services provided with State and local funds for children in 

project areas should be comparable to those provided for children in the non-project 

areas, particularly with respect to class size, special services, and the number and variety 

of personnel. Title I funds, therefore, are not to be used to supplant State and local funds 

which are already being expended in the project areas or which would be expended in 

those areas if the services in those areas were comparable to those for non-project areas. 

In the 1970 reauthorization of the Title I statute, Congress added a comparability requirement, 

and the Office of Education subsequently issued regulations requiring that each Title I school be 

at least comparable to the average of non–Title I schools on five measures: 

• number of pupils per certified teacher; 

• number of pupils per other certified instructional staff, including principals, vice 

principals, guidance counselors, and librarians; 

• number of pupils per noncertified instructional staff, including secretaries, teacher aides, 

other clerical personnel; 

• instructional salaries (less longevity) per pupil;2 and 

• other instructional costs per pupil, such as textbooks, school library books, audio-visual 

equipment, and teaching supplies. 

These initial requirements were revised multiple times over subsequent years.3

 The current 

statute, reauthorized in 2002, provides that “a local educational agency may receive [Title I 

funds] only if State and local funds will be used in [Title I schools] to provide services that, 

taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services in [non–Title I schools]” (ESEA

Section 1120A(c); see Appendix B for the full text of this section). The statute specifies that a 

district can meet the comparability requirement by filing a written assurance that it has 

established and implemented the following: 

• a district-wide salary schedule; 

• a policy to ensure equivalence among schools in teachers, administrators, and other staff; 

and 

• a policy to ensure equivalence among schools in the provision of curriculum materials 

and instructional supplies. 

 

2 The longevity rule allows districts to exclude staff salary differentials based on years of employment from 

comparability calculations. 3 For a detailed history of the Title I comparability requirement, see McClure (2008). 
In making comparability determinations, the Title I statute provides that staff salary differentials 

for years of employment are not to be included in calculations of expenditures per pupil or 

instructional salaries per pupil. In addition, a district need not include unpredictable changes in 

student enrollment or personnel assignments that occur after the beginning of a school year in 

determining comparability of services. 

Current Title I guidance indicates that a district may also meet the comparability requirement if it 

establishes and implements other measures for determining compliance, such as the following: 

• student/instructional staff ratios; 

• student/instructional staff salary ratios; 

• expenditures per pupil; or 

• a resource allocation plan based on student characteristics, such as poverty, limited 

English proficiency, disability, and so forth. 

When demonstrating compliance with the Title I comparability requirement, a district may 

exclude state and local funds expended for the following: 

• language instruction education programs; 

• excess state and local costs of providing services to children with disabilities, as 

determined by the school district; and 

• state or local supplemental programs in any school attendance area or school that meet 

the intent and purposes of Title I, Part A (Sections 1120A(c)(5) and 1120A(d)). 

A district may determine comparability of each of its Title I schools on a district-wide basis or a 

grade-span basis. The Title I fiscal guidance clarifies that a district may also exclude schools that 

have fewer than 100 students and that a district need not demonstrate comparability if it has only 

one school at each school grade level. 

The law also requires that a school district develop procedures for complying with the 

comparability requirement and maintain records that are updated biennially documenting the 

district’s compliance. The Title I fiscal guidance clarifies that although a district is required to 

update its documentation that demonstrates compliance with the comparability requirement only 

once every two years, it must annually perform the calculations needed to demonstrate that all of 

its Title I schools are in fact comparable and make adjustments if any are not. If a district has 

filed a written assurance that it has established and implemented a district-wide salary schedule 

and policies to ensure equivalence among schools in staffing and in the provision of materials 

and supplies, it must keep records to document that the salary schedule and policies were, in fact, 

implemented and that calculations demonstrate that equivalence was achieved among schools in 

staffing, materials, and supplies. Similarly, if a district establishes and implements other 

measures for determining compliance with comparability, such as student/instructional staff 

Introduction 3 
Introduction 4 

ratios, it must maintain source documentation to support the calculations and documentation to 

demonstrate that any needed adjustments to staff assignments are made.4

Previous Research Findings 

Previous research in selected school districts has found inequities in the distribution of funds 

within some districts. For example, Roza, Miller, and Hill (2005) found that in four out of five 

urban school districts studied, the highest-poverty schools had lower per-pupil expenditures from 

non-categorical-program funds compared with the lowest-poverty schools (ranging from 

10 percent to 15 percent less). They attributed this difference to “the practice of allocating staff 

positions instead of real labor costs” and argued that “the often used practice of salary 

averaging—accounting for labor costs by using the average district salary for each school staff 

position rather than the actual salary paid—either inflates or deflates real expenditures at a given 

school beyond what is reported.” In a subsequent study looking at 10 large urban districts, Roza 

(2008) found that teachers in the highest-poverty schools had lower salaries, on average, than 

teachers in the lowest-poverty schools in their district; this gap in average teacher salaries ranged 

from a low of $1,286 to a high of $4,846 (per teacher). 

Larger-scale studies conducted to date have had a limited ability to directly examine the issue of 

within-district comparability because they typically were based on nationally representative 

samples of schools that included only a sample of schools within an individual district. For 

example, a recent Department evaluation report examined the equitable distribution of schoollevel personnel expenditures per student in a nationally representative sample of Title I and non–

Title I schools based on data for the 2004–05 school year. That study found that Title I and non–

Title I schools across the nation had, on average, a similar base of state and local school 

personnel expenditures per pupil (excluding Title I and other federal funds). High-poverty and 

low-poverty schools also did not show significant differences in per-pupil spending on school 

personnel. However, because the study collected data for only a sample of schools within each 

district, these findings reflect differences in resource levels between states and districts as well as 

within districts and may also be affected by regional differences in the cost of education (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2009). 

An earlier Department evaluation that examined the comparability issue suggested that there 

were greater disparities in school resources between districts than within districts, based on a 

nationally representative sample of schools in 1997–98. For example, in low-revenue districts, 

average teacher salaries were 9 percent lower in Title I schools than in non–Title I schools 

($33,047 vs. $36,163); in high-revenue districts, however, average teacher salaries were similar 

in Title I and non–Title I schools ($47,438 and $47,855, respectively) but were from 32 percent 

to 43 percent higher than in the low-revenue districts. However, because this study also collected 

data for only a sample of schools within each sample district, it was not able to assess 

comparability within school districts but, rather, broad patterns across the sample schools and 

districts (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). 

 

4 For more detailed information on the Title I comparability requirement and examples of comparability 

calculations, see the Non-Regulatory Guidance on Title I Fiscal Issues (available at 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.doc). 
ARRA Requirement to Collect School-Level Expenditure Data

ARRA required each school district receiving Title I, Part A, funds provided under ARRA to 

report a school-by-school listing of per-pupil education expenditures from state and local funds 

for the 2008–09 school year to its state by December 1, 2009. The ARRA statute also required 

states to report these data to the Department by March 31, 2010. The statutory language for this 

requirement is included in the section of the law authorizing the appropriation of an additional 

$13 billion in Title I, Part A, funds and reads as follows: 

For an additional amount for “Education for the Disadvantaged” to carry out Title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (“ESEA”), $13,000,000,000: 

Provided, That $5,000,000,000 shall be available for targeted grants under section 1125 

of the ESEA: Provided further, That $5,000,000,000 shall be available for education 

finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA: Provided further, That 

$3,000,000,000 shall be for school improvement grants under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA: Provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds available 

under this paragraph shall be required to file with the State educational agency, no later 

than December 1, 2009, a school-by-school listing of per-pupil educational expenditures 

from State and local sources during the 2008–2009 academic year: Provided further, That 

each State educational agency shall report that information to the Secretary of Education 

by March 31, 2010. 

Study Design 

In designing a study to carry out the ARRA requirement for reporting of school-by-school 

expenditure data, the Department recognized that this would not be an easy task for many states 

and school districts because many state and district data systems that were in place during the 

2008–09 school year did not track expenditures for individual schools. Indeed, a number of states 

argued that requiring states and school districts to attempt to compile and report such data 

retroactively could result in inconsistent and possibly inaccurate data because the districts might 

not be able to reconstruct the data after the fact. 

However, after reviewing this issue, the Department concluded that school districts usually do 

have data systems that can identify which staff are assigned to each school, and at a minimum 

the school districts could extract and report salary data for school-level staff. Although data on 

personnel salaries would not provide a complete picture of school-level resources, these data 

would capture the bulk of state and local expenditures that occur at the school level. In addition, 

the Department determined that some districts and states have more comprehensive data systems 

in place that can also track and report non-personnel expenditures. 

Therefore, the Department developed a plan to balance the goals of obtaining useful information 

about the equitable distribution of school resources and preventing excessive burden on states 

and school districts by asking states to collect and report school-by-school data on personnel 

expenditures and also to report school-level data on non-personnel expenditures, if available. 

To assess the quality and accuracy of the aggregate school-level expenditure data, the 

Department also decided to collect more detailed data from five states, including personnel-level 

data and school-level expenditure data broken down by funding source. 

Introduction 5 
The Department also recognized that because this data reporting requirement was retroactive, it 

might not be possible to collect expenditure data that were defined consistently across districts 

and states. To maximize the consistency of the reported data while also allowing flexibility for 

states and districts to report data that were available in their existing data systems, the 

Department’s Study of School-Level Expenditures provided guidelines describing the specific 

types of expenditures that states and districts should follow to the extent possible. The study also 

asked states to complete a checklist on the categories of school-level expenditures that they 

included and excluded in their reporting (see Appendix A for a copy of the data reporting 

instructions). 

Specifically, the study asked states and districts to report expenditures from state and local funds 

only (i.e., excluding expenditures from federal program funds) and to exclude expenditures for 

special education, adult education, school nutrition programs, summer school, preschool, and 

employee benefits. The study asked states to report school-by-school data on four types of 

expenditures: 

• total personnel salaries for all school-level instructional and support staff; 

• salaries for instructional staff; 

• salaries for teachers; and 

• non-personnel expenditures (if available). 

School-level instructional and support staff were defined as including teachers and instructional 

aides; guidance counselors, nurses, attendance officers, speech pathologists, and other staff who 

provide support services for students; staff involved in curriculum development, staff training, 

operating the library, media and computer centers; and principals and other staff involved in 

school administration. Instructional staff were defined as including teachers and instructional 

aides. Teachers were defined to include those who provide instruction to students in a classroom 

as well as personnel who teach in other locations, such as home or hospital, or in other learning 

situations, such as those involving cocurricular activities. 

Salary expenditures were defined as including base salary, incentive pay, bonuses, and 

supplemental stipends for mentoring or other additional roles but excluding employee benefits. 

For non-personnel expenditures, states and districts were asked to include, to the extent feasible, 

non-personnel expenditures associated with instruction, instructional support, pupil support, and 

school administration, including expenditures on professional development; instructional 

materials and supplies; computers, software, and other technology; contracted services, such as 

distance learning services; and library books and media center learning materials. 

Exhibit 1 provides information on the rationales for the specific types of expenditures that were 

included and excluded from the expenditure definitions used for this study. 

Introduction 6 
Exhibit 1. Types of expenditures that were included and excluded from the expenditure 

definitions used for the study of school-level expenditures 

Expenditure Rationale 

Expenditures on salaries for 

school personnel 

Salaries for all school-level instructional and support staff were expected 

to capture the majority of school-level expenditures for instructional 

and support functions. Because teachers and other instructional staff 

are particularly important to the educational opportunities provided to 

students, states were asked to report these salary expenditures 

separately in order to enable the study to examine whether the 

distribution of these resources differs from total school personnel 

expenditures. 

Non-personnel expenditures 

at the school level 

Non-personnel expenditures are an important component of total 

educational resources provided in a school. Although such data may 

be more difficult for states and districts to report based on existing 

data systems, they may also permit a more complete examination of 

the distribution of school-level expenditures. 

Exclusion of most federallyfunded expenditures The ARRA requirement was to report only expenditures from state and 

local funding sources, because federal programs are intended to 

supplement an equitably-distributed base of state and local 

resources. However, the study allowed states and districts to include 

expenditures paid from federal Impact Aid funds and from the State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund, if used under the Impact Aid authority, 

because Impact Aid funds are intended to compensate for reduced 

local revenues resulting from military bases and other federal activity. 

Exclusion of special 

education expenditures 

Because special education expenditures will vary in relation to the 

numbers and types of students with disabilities in a particular school, 

excluding these expenditures provides a more meaningful picture of 

the equitable distribution of school-level general education funds. 

Exclusion of employee 

benefits 

Employee benefits were excluded because state and district practices for 

supporting and accounting for employee benefits vary widely. 

Excluding employee benefits reduced potential problems with the 

comparability of the data as well as reducing the burden of this data 

collection for states and districts. 

Other exclusions The data collection was designed to focus on expenditures that are 

associated with regular K–12 instruction, instructional support, and 

school administration and to collect expenditure categories that were 

more likely to be reported consistently across states, districts, and 

schools. Adult education was excluded because it is outside the K–12 

grade range. States were asked to exclude summer school and 

preschool programs because these programs are sometimes 

administered centrally and may use certain schools to serve students 

from multiple school attendance areas. Similarly, school nutrition 

programs were excluded because they may be accounted for 

centrally rather than at the school level, and are typically not included 

in instructional support accounting classifications. 

Introduction 7 
Introduction 8 

Although most states reported that they were able to submit school expenditure data that were 

consistent with the above specifications, some states indicated some divergence from these 

preferred specifications. Aside from one state that included federal funds in its reporting, all 

other states are included in the analyses conducted for this report, although their data may not be 

fully consistent with those reported by other states. Differences between states in the personnel 

expenditure categories used for reporting school-level expenditures are likely not a significant 

problem for the within-district analyses conducted for this report but may significantly reduce 

the validity of using the data for analyses that examine averages across states and districts. The 

data reported for non-personnel expenditures show very wide variations across districts and 

states and appear likely to be defined inconsistently across sites. See chapter on Study 

Limitations and Data Quality Issues for further discussion of these issues. 

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico submitted data on school-by-school 

expenditures. The statutory deadline for states to report these data was March 31, 2010, and 

44 states met that deadline; the remaining states submitted their data by June 3, 2010. 

State data submissions for this study included school expenditure and enrollment data for a total 

of 90,544 schools in 15,610 districts. Some of these schools and districts were excluded from 

analyses because the district contained no Title I schools (3,943 schools) and was out of scope 

for this report or due to data quality concerns (3,608 schools). The analyses in this report are 

based on an analysis dataset that includes 82,993 schools, or 92 percent of all schools for which 

states reported school expenditure and enrollment included in the state reports. These 82,993 

schools were in 13,225 districts, or 85 percent of all districts for which states reported school 

expenditure and enrollment data. 

In addition to the primary data collection described above, the study also collected more detailed 

school-level and personnel-level data from five states: Colorado, Florida, New York, Ohio, and 

Texas. The purpose of this additional data collection was to: (1) validate the aggregate data 

collected in the primary data collection by comparing them to the more detailed data collected 

from the five states; and (2) carry out more in-depth analyses of possible variations in resource 

levels across schools. The specific data collected varied across the five states depending on the 

data that was available in existing data systems in each state. The more detailed five-state data 

will be analyzed in a later report from this study. 
Study Limitations and Data Quality Issues 

Through this study, the Department has conducted an unprecedented data collection on schoolby-school expenditures for the large majority of public school districts and schools in the United 

States. Because school districts typically do not have accounting systems that track state and 

local expenditures at the school level and this was the first time such data have ever been 

collected on a large-scale basis, this effort faced specific challenges that may affect the accuracy 

and consistency of the data reported. If similar requirements to report school-level expenditures 

are continued in the future, it may be possible to improve the accuracy and comprehensiveness of 

such data over time by working with states and districts to develop accounting systems that are 

designed to track expenditures down to the school level. 

For this 2008–09 data collection, specific limitations are that the reported school expenditure 

data do not include all funds spent at the school level and that expenditure categories were not 

always defined consistently across states and districts. Some schools were dropped from the 

analysis because their reported expenditures were extremely low or high. One state included 

federal funds in its reported data and was therefore excluded from the analysis. 

School expenditure data requested for this data collection did not include 

all funds that were spent at the school level. 

Some expenditures that benefit individual schools may be tracked only on a district-wide basis, 

and districts may offer programs and services that directly benefit students and schools (e.g., 

district-wide summer school and preschool programs) but do not have their costs allocated to 

specific schools. This and other similar issues presented challenges to collecting the data that 

were required to be reported. Recognizing the challenges inherent in the ARRA reporting 

requirement, this study defined the expenditure categories for which reporting was required in a 

way that was likely to be feasible for districts and states to report based on existing data systems. 

The study also asked states and districts to exclude a number of expenditure types, including 

expenditures from federal funds, special education, preschool, school lunch and breakfast 

programs, and employee benefits. 

As a result, the data collected for this study should not be used to examine the share of total 

district resources that were used at the school level versus at the district level. 

School-level expenditure data presented in this report are not always 

consistently defined across states and districts and are best used to 

examine resource patterns within districts rather than across districts. 

The study attempted to obtain consistent information by specifying the preferred expenditure 

definitions that it asked states to report. However, the study conducted this post hoc data 

collection after the 2008–09 school year had ended and therefore had to rely on existing state and 

district accounting systems, which historically have not accounted for expenditures at the school 

level in most states. States expressed considerable concern about their ability to report 

expenditures retroactively using the Department’s definitions, and the study allowed states the 

flexibility to report data in a way that was feasible in their state. 

Study Limitations and Data Quality Issues 9 
Most states followed the reporting guidelines provided by the Department concerning which 

expenditure types to include and which to exclude, but some states differed on specific reporting 

elements. For example, 45 states indicated they excluded special education, and six states 

included these expenditures (see Exhibit 2). Thus, when analyzing data across states, it is 

important to keep in mind that school-level expenditures are not always consistently defined. 

Exhibit 2. Number of states that indicated that they included and excluded various types of 

expenditures in reporting school-level expenditures, 2008–09 

Type of expenditure Included Excluded 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

indicated 

Expenditures paid from federal funds except 

Impact Aid and State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

if used under the Impact Aid authority 1 51 0 0 

Expenditures paid from federal Impact Aid funds 

and State Fiscal Stabilization Fund if used 

under the Impact Aid authority 35 6 6 5 

Special education 6 45 0 1 

Adult education 0 50 0 2 

School nutrition 0 51 0 1 

Summer school 7 43 0 2 

Preschool programs 6 43 1 2 

Expenditures made by regional educational 

agencies on behalf of schools 0 16 13 23 

Incentive pay and/or bonuses 45 3 1 3 

Supplemental pay for additional roles 48 2 0 2 

Employee benefits 1 50 0 1 

Non-personnel expenditures 37 15 0 0 

Exhibit reads: One state indicated that it included expenditures paid from federal funds in reporting school-level 

expenditures. 

Because states did not consistently define their school-level expenditures, this analysis focuses 

primarily on examining within-district and within-state patterns in the distribution of funds. 

Occasionally, we provide national averages in order to illustrate certain broad patterns, but one 

should view these averages with caution. Working with states to establish common definitions 

and classifications for reporting school-level expenditure data would enable future studies to 

collect more consistent data across states. 

States usually reported all three types of personnel expenditures requested 

for this study, but states less frequently reported non-personnel 

expenditures. 

States reported personnel expenditure data for nearly all of their schools: total personnel 

expenditures (99 percent of schools), expenditures for instructional staff (95 percent), and 

expenditures for teachers (95 percent) (see Exhibit C-3 in Appendix C). States reported nonpersonnel expenditures for a smaller percentage of their schools (72 percent), and non-personnel 

expenditures accounted for a small percentage of all reported expenditures (6 percent overall, 

Study Limitations and Data Quality Issues 10 
and 8 percent in schools for which both personnel and non-personnel expenditures were 

reported). 

This report focuses on presenting comparisons of school-level resources 

based on total personnel expenditures per pupil. It also briefly examines 

the extent to which other types of expenditures show similar or different 

patterns. 

Total personnel expenditures provide a more complete picture of school-level resources than do 

expenditures for just instructional staff or teachers. In theory, focusing on the total of personnel 

and non-personnel expenditures would provide the most comprehensive view of school resources 

and how they vary across schools. However, the non-personnel expenditures that states and 

districts reported for this study appear to be much more inconsistently defined and reported. 

First, 28 percent of the schools for which expenditure data were reported did not have any 

non-personnel expenditures reported; many but not all of these schools were in the 15 states that 

did not report any non-personnel expenditures. In addition, in schools that had data reported on 

non-personnel expenditures, the amounts reported for individual schools varied widely; for 

example, non-personnel expenditures per pupil for schools at the 90th percentile and 

10th percentile were $706 and $65, respectively, a difference of 986 percent—compared with a 

much smaller percentage difference for total per-pupil personnel expenditures ($5,459 and 

$2,485, respectively, or a difference of 120 percent). Finally, non-personnel expenditures 

represent a small fraction of total reported expenditures for this data collection (6 percent), so 

adding non-personnel and personnel expenditures together produces findings that are very 

similar to the patterns for personnel expenditures alone. 

Although the reported personnel expenditures per pupil were sometimes 

very low or very high (e.g., below $1,000 or above $30,000), most schools 

fell within a narrower range of expenditures. 

States and districts reported total personnel salary expenditures for their schools that were 

usually within a range between $2,000 and $6,000 per pupil (89 percent of schools). Indeed, 

states and districts reported personnel expenditures between $2,500 and $5,000 per pupil for 

74 percent of the schools. However, a small number of schools had very low expenditures of less 

than $1,000 per pupil (1,367 schools) or very high expenditures of more than $30,000 per pupil 

(135 schools); these schools were excluded from the analyses presented in this report due to 

concerns about the accuracy of these data. The total number of schools excluded due to very low 

or very high expenditures per pupil (1,502 schools) accounted for less than 2 percent of all 

schools included in state reports. 

One state (New Jersey) reported expenditure data that included 

expenditures from federal funds and therefore could not be included in the 

analyses presented in this report. 

The ARRA requirement specifically directed states and districts to report school-level 

“educational expenditures from State and local sources,” and this report is using these data to 

examine the extent to which state and local resources were distributed equitably within school 

districts. Federal programs are often designed to provide additional resources in high-need 

Study Limitations and Data Quality Issues 11 
Study Limitations and Data Quality Issues 12 

schools and are not intended to supplant state and local funds or compensate for an uneven 

distribution of state and local funds. 

The data reporting instructions developed to implement this ARRA requirement offered 

flexibility in defining the expenditures to be reported, in recognition of the challenges for 

districts and states in compiling these data retroactively. New Jersey interpreted this flexibility as 

permitting the state to include federal funds in its school expenditure reports. All other states 

reported that they excluded federal funds from the reported data. 

A subsequent data collection that the Department is currently conducting, the Civil Rights Data 

Collection (CRDC), is collecting similar school-by-school expenditure data for a large sample of 

school districts, including a total of approximately 7,000 districts nationwide and approximately 

260 districts in New Jersey, for the 2009–10 school year. The Department is following up with 

New Jersey districts to ensure that their CRDC reporting includes only those expenditures that 

were made from state and local funds. 

The dataset compiled for this study includes a large majority of public 

school districts and schools across the nation. 

State data submissions for this study included school expenditure and enrollment data for a total 

of 90,544 schools in 15,610 districts. Some of these schools and districts were excluded from 

analyses because the district contained no Title I schools and was therefore out of scope for this 

report (3,943 schools and 1,801 districts) or due to data quality concerns (3,608 schools and 

584 districts). Among the 3,608 schools that were removed from the analysis due to data quality 

concerns, 2,106 were in New Jersey and were removed because that state included federal funds 

in its school expenditure reports, and 1,502 were removed because they had very low or very 

high reported expenditures (see discussion above). The analyses in this report are based on an 

analysis dataset that includes 82,993 schools and 13,225 districts, or 92 percent of schools and 

85 percent of districts for which states reported school expenditure and enrollment data. 

According to the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD), in 2008–09 there were 98,706 public 

schools and 13,809 regular school districts. The number of schools included in the analysis file 

for this report (82,993) amounted to 84 percent of the total number of schools reported in the 

CCD. The number of school districts included in the analysis file for this report (13,225) 

amounted to 96 percent of the total number of districts reported in the CCD. 

Some of the schools that were excluded from state reports may be in districts that were not 

required to report these data because they did not receive Title I, Part A, ARRA funds. A few 

states indicated which districts did not receive Title I, Part A, ARRA funds, but most did not. 

Also, some states asked all of their Title I districts to report the school expenditure data. Thus, it 

is unclear to what extent these schools were out-of-scope because they were in districts that were 

not required to participate in this data collection versus in-scope but with missing data. An 

estimated 14,171 districts received Title I, Part A, funds in 2008–09, based on the U.S. 

Department of Education EDFacts information management system.5

 The number of Title I 

 

5 The number of Title I districts reported by EDFacts is greater than the total number of school districts reported in 

the CCD; this discrepancy is likely due to differences in the definition of “school district.” 
Study Limitations and Data Quality Issues 13 

districts included in the analysis file for this report (13,225) amounted to 93 percent of the total 

number of Title I districts reported in EDFacts. 

Demographic and other data were missing for a small percentage of 

schools in the dataset. Schools with missing data were excluded from 

some analyses. 

Demographic and program participation data were available for nearly all of the schools in the 

dataset. Missing demographic data, such as Title I status and poverty level of the school, were 

imputed from the previous years’ data when available. After imputation, 3 percent of the schools 

were missing data on school poverty level and were excluded from analyses comparing higherpoverty and lower-poverty schools. Data on school Title I status were missing for 0.1 percent of 

the schools; these schools were excluded from analyses of Title I and non–Title I schools. 

For those schools with nonstandard or missing grade-level information, school grade level (i.e., 

elementary, middle, and high school) was imputed based on the grade levels of the students 

enrolled at the school, to the extent possible. Schools with nonstandard grade levels (such as 

K–12) and schools for which there is no information about the grade level of the students 

(3 percent of schools) were excluded from analyses examining patterns for elementary schools, 

middle schools, and high schools. These schools were, however, included in the “All schools” 

results in exhibits.6

 

 

6 Sable and Plotts (2010) provide details on how the CCD classifies school grade level. 
Study Limitations and Data Quality Issues 14 

This page intentionally left blank 
Key Findings 15 

Key Findings 

This chapter presents findings from the analysis of the 2008–09 school-by-school expenditure 

data reported by states and school districts. The analyses examine the distribution of state and 

local funds within districts, primarily by comparing per-pupil expenditures in Title I versus non–

Title I schools and in higher-poverty versus lower-poverty schools. 

This report focuses on examining expenditures separately for elementary schools, middle 

schools, and high schools because school-level expenditures often vary by school grade level, 

and the Title I comparability requirement specifically allows districts to demonstrate compliance 

separately by school grade level. Data collected for this study indicate that per-pupil 

expenditures from state and local funds often are higher in secondary schools than in elementary 

schools. Among the 9,178 districts that had at least one elementary school and at least one high 

school, 70 percent of districts had higher average per-pupil expenditures in their high schools 

than in their elementary schools. Similarly, among the 7,518 districts that had at least one 

elementary school and at least one middle school, 65 percent of districts had higher average perpupil expenditures in their middle schools than in their elementary schools. Across all districts, 

the average per-pupil personnel expenditures were $3,682 for high schools and $3,646 for 

middle schools, compared with $3,543 for elementary schools. As noted in the previous chapter, 

school expenditure definitions were not consistent across all states, and readers should view 

across-state averages with caution. 

Because of these differences in average per-pupil personnel expenditures by school grade level, 

and because most districts do not have both Title I and non–Title I schools at the same grade 

level, comparing expenditures across all Title I and non–Title I schools without regard to school 

grade level may be misleading. Therefore, this report primarily examines funding patterns 

separately by school grade level, which results in restricting those analyses to districts that have 

at least two schools at a particular grade level. The report also presents analyses based on all 

schools within each district, without regard to school grade level, which results in including a 

greater number of districts and schools in each analysis but may reflect funding differences by 

school grade level as well as by Title I status and school poverty level. 

Comparing Per-Pupil Personnel Expenditures Across All Schools Within a District 

Per-pupil personnel expenditures often varied considerably across schools 

within districts, and nearly half of all schools had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures that were more than 10 percent above or below their district’s 

average. Some, but not all, of these differences were related to school 

grade level. 

Across all districts and schools (including both Title I and non–Title I schools), 47 percent of 

schools had state and local personnel expenditures per pupil that were more than 10 percent 

above or below their district’s average. However, some expenditure differences were related to 

school grade level: these data show that high schools and middle schools tended to have higher 

per-pupil personnel expenditures than elementary schools in their districts. 
Key Findings 16 

After controlling for school grade level by examining expenditure patterns separately for 

elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools, the percentage of schools with per-pupil 

personnel expenditures that were more than 10 percent above or below their district’s average for 

their school grade level was 36 percent for elementary schools, 30 percent for middle schools, 

and 42 percent for high schools (see Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3. Percentage of all schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel 

expenditures, compared with the average for their district, overall and by school 

grade level, 2008–09 

22% 18%

27% 27%

15% 16%

11% 14%

31% 35% 30% 24%

18% 19% 17%

15%

14% 12% 15% 20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High

schools

All

schools

More than 10% below

4% to 10% below

About the same (+/- 3%)

4% to 10% above

More than 10% above

(n = 41,944) (n = 10,461) (n = 9,001) (n = 79,946)

Exhibit reads: Fourteen percent of elementary schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that were more than 

10 percent below the average for all elementary schools in their district. 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

In Exhibit 3 and subsequent analyses, we also examine the percentage of schools that were 

between 4 percent to 10 percent above and below the district average and the percentage that 

were within 3 percentage points of the district average, which is presented here as being “about 

the same” as the district average.7

Overall, 35 percent of schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that were 4 percent or more 

below their district’s average. By school grade level, the percentage of schools with per-pupil 

personnel expenditures that were 4 percent or more below their district’s average for their school 

grade level was 32 percent for elementary schools, 31 percent for middle schools, and 32 percent 

for high schools. Looking at a more restrictive definition of low-expenditure schools, the 

percentage with per-pupil personnel expenditures that were more than 10 percent below their 

 

7 The 3 percent allowance was chosen to coincide with the latitude proposed in the Fiscal Fairness Act (H.R. 1294 

and S. 701), introduced in the 112th Congress. This legislation would require relevant Title I districts to ensure 

that each Title I school has average per-pupil expenditures from state and local funds that are at least 97 percent of 

the average per-pupil expenditures across the district’s non–Title I schools. 
Key Findings 17 

district’s average for their school grade level was 14 percent for elementary schools, 12 percent 

for middle schools, and 15 percent for high schools. 

Number of Districts Included in Within-District Expenditure Comparisons 

Within-district comparability analyses were relevant for a relatively small 

proportion of school districts, but these districts accounted for a large 

proportion of students. 

Many districts did not have at least two schools, either overall or at a particular school grade 

level. In many additional districts, all elementary schools were Title I schools, and all middle 

schools and high schools were non–Title I schools. For this reason, out of a total of 13,225 Title I 

districts in the 2008–09 dataset, the study was able to compare expenditures in Title I schools 

with those in non–Title I schools in just 2,700 districts at the elementary school level, 

859 districts at the middle school level, and 426 districts at the high school level (see Exhibit 4). 

Exhibit 4. Number of Title I districts that were included in comparability analyses, overall and 

by school grade level, 2008–09 

2,700

5,490

11,901

859

2,572

7,660

426

1,956

9,868

8,279

10,166

13,225

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Elementary schools Middle schools High schools All schools

At least one Title I school 

and one non–Title I 

school

All districts in dataset

At least one higherpoverty school and one 

lower-poverty school

Exhibit reads: Out of 11,901 districts with Title I elementary schools, 2,700 had at least one Title I and one non–

Title I elementary school. 

Analyses comparing higher-poverty and lower-poverty schools were able to include larger 

numbers of districts: 5,490 districts at the elementary school level, 2,572 districts at the middle 

school level, and 1,956 districts at the high school level. These analyses defined higher-poverty 

schools as those with a poverty rate above the district average for that school grade level and 

defined lower-poverty schools as those below the district average.8

 The study excluded a small 

 

8 School poverty rate was based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 
number of districts from these analyses due to missing school poverty data or because all schools 

at the grade level had the same poverty rate; despite these exclusions, the number of districts 

included in these analyses was very similar to the number of districts that have at least 

two schools. 

Overall, 6,129 districts (46 percent) were included in one or more of the comparability analyses 

conducted by school grade level. These districts accounted for 92 percent of all students in the 

Title I districts included in this dataset. 

Comparing Expenditures Between Title I and Non–Title I Schools 

Within districts that had both Title I and non–Title I schools, more than 40 

percent of Title I schools had lower personnel expenditures per pupil than 

did non–Title I schools at the same school grade level. 

At the elementary level, 46 percent of Title I schools had state and local personnel expenditures 

per pupil that were below the average for non–Title I elementary schools in their district, while 

54 percent were above the average for non–Title I elementary schools (see Exhibit 5). At the 

middle school and high school levels, Title I schools were less likely to have below-average 

personnel expenditures per pupil (42 percent and 45 percent, respectively). When examined 

across all schools, without regard to school grade level, Title I schools were more likely to have 

below-average per-pupil personnel expenditures than the non–Title I schools in their district. 

Exhibit 5. Percentage of Title I schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and 

above the average for non–Title I schools in their district, overall and by school 

grade level, 2008–09 

54% 58% 55% 48%

46% 42% 45% 52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High

schools

All

schools

Below average for 

non–Title I schools

Above average for 

non–Title I schools

(n = 17,391) (n = 2,265) (n = 1,536) (n = 36,290)

Exhibit reads: Forty-six percent of Title I elementary schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that were below 

the average for non–Title I elementary schools in their district. 

Key Findings 18 
Exhibit 6 shows a more detailed picture of the extent to which Title I schools had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures that were below or above their district’s average for non–Title I schools. 

In this chart, Title I schools that are within 3 percentage points of the district average for non–

Title I schools are presented as being “about the same” as the district’s average for non–Title I 

schools. We also present the percentage of Title I schools that are 4 percent to 10 percent above 

and below the non–Title I average and those that are more than 10 percent above and below the 

non–Title I average. 

At the elementary level, 21 percent of Title I elementary schools had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures that were more than 10 percent below the average for non–Title I elementary 

schools in their district, and an additional 14 percent of these schools were 4 percent to 

10 percent below their district’s non–Title I average (see Exhibit 6). Twenty-two percent of these 

schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that were about the same (defined as within 

3 percentage points) as the average for non–Title I elementary schools in their district, 14 percent 

were 4 percent to 10 percent above the non–Title I average, and 29 percent were more than 

10 percent above the non–Title I average. 

Exhibit 6. Percentage of Title I schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel 

expenditures, compared with the average for non–Title I schools in their district, 

overall and by school grade level, 2008–09 

29% 35% 39%

28%

14%

13% 10%

11%

22% 19% 17%

18%

14% 14% 10%

12%

21% 19% 24% 31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High

schools

All

schools

More than 10% below

4% to 10% below

About the same (+/- 3%)

4% to 10% above

More than 10% above

(n = 17,391) (n = 2,265) (n = 1,536) (n = 36,290)

Exhibit reads: Twenty-one percent of Title I elementary schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that were 

more than 10 percent below the average for non–Title I elementary schools in their district. 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Key Findings 19 
At the middle school and high school levels, similar percentages of Title I schools had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures that were 4 percent or more below the average for non–Title I schools in 

their district (33 percent for middle schools and 34 percent for high schools, compared with 

35 percent for elementary schools). However, Title I middle schools and high schools were more 

likely than Title I elementary schools to have per-pupil personnel expenditures that were 

4 percent or more above their district’s average for non–Title I schools at the same school grade 

level (48 percent for middle schools and 49 percent for high schools, compared with 43 percent 

for elementary schools). 

Another way to examine the extent to which Title I schools have below-average expenditure 

levels is to look at the percentage of Title I districts that have lower expenditure levels in their 

Title I schools than in their non–Title I schools. At the elementary level, among districts with at 

least one Title I elementary school and one non–Title I elementary school, 47 percent of these 

districts had lower personnel expenditures per pupil in their Title I elementary schools than in 

their non–Title I elementary schools (see Exhibit 7). This percentage was about the same for 

middle schools (46 percent) but lower for high schools (39 percent). When examined across all 

schools, without regard to school grade level, Title I districts were much more likely to have 

lower per-pupil personnel expenditures in their Title I schools than in their non–Title I schools 

(67 percent). 

Exhibit 7. Percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures below and above the average for their non–Title I schools, overall and 

by school grade level, 2008–09 

53% 54% 61%

33%

47% 46% 39%

67%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High 

schools

All 

schools

Below average for 

non–Title I schools

Above average for 

non–Title I schools

(n = 2,700) (n = 859) (n = 426) (n = 8,279)

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of Title I districts had average per-pupil personnel expenditures in their Title I 

elementary schools that were below the average for their non–Title I elementary schools. 

Key Findings 20 
Looking at the more detailed set of categories, 20 percent of the Title I districts had average perpupil personnel expenditures in their Title I elementary schools that were more than 10 percent 

below the average for non–Title I elementary schools in their district; an additional 14 percent 

had average personnel expenditures per pupil in Title I schools that were 4 percent to 10 percent 

below the non–Title I average (see Exhibit 8). Twenty-eight percent of the districts had average 

per-pupil personnel expenditures that were about the same (within 3 percentage points) in their 

Title I and non–Title I elementary schools, and 39 percent had higher personnel expenditures per 

pupil in their Title I elementary schools. 

Exhibit 8. Percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had lower and higher per-pupil 

personnel expenditures, on average, than non–Title I schools, overall and by school 

grade level, 2008–09 

22% 28%

42%

15%

17%

14%

11%

10%

28% 23%

18%

18%

14% 13%

8%

14%

20% 23% 21%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High

schools

All

schools

More than 10% below

4% to 10% below

About the same (+/- 3%)

4% to 10% above

More than 10% above

(n = 2,700) (n = 859) (n = 426) (n = 8,279)

Exhibit reads: Twenty percent of Title I districts had average per-pupil personnel expenditures in their Title I 

elementary schools that were more than 10 percent below the average for their non–Title I elementary schools. 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

At the middle school level, 36 percent of the Title I districts had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures in their Title I schools that were 4 percent or more below their non–Title I schools. 

At the high school level, 29 percent of the Title I districts had personnel expenditures that were 

4 percent or more lower in their Title I schools than in their non–Title I schools. 

Across all schools without regard to school grade level, 57 percent of Title I districts had average 

per-pupil personnel expenditures in their Title I schools that were 4 percent or more below their 

non–Title I schools. However, this reflects differences between schools serving different grade 

levels and differences between Title I and non–Title I schools. 

Key Findings 21 
Comparing Expenditures Between Higher-Poverty and Lower-Poverty Schools 

More than one-third of higher-poverty schools (above their district’s 

poverty average) had lower per-pupil personnel expenditures than lowerpoverty schools in their districts at the same school grade level. 

This analysis compared schools that had a poverty rate above their district’s poverty average for 

their school grade level with schools that were below that average poverty rate. At the 

elementary level, 42 percent of higher-poverty schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that 

were below the average for lower-poverty elementary schools in their district, while 58 percent 

were above the lower-poverty schools’ average (see Exhibit 9). At the middle school and high 

school levels, higher-poverty schools were less likely to have below-average personnel 

expenditures per pupil (38 percent and 34 percent, respectively). 

Exhibit 9. Percentage of higher-poverty schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures 

below and above the average for lower-poverty schools in their district, overall and 

by school grade level, 2008–09 

58% 62% 66%

55%

42% 38% 34%

45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High 

schools

All 

schools

Below average for 

lower-poverty schools

Above average for 

lower-poverty schools

(n = 21,991) (n = 5,495) (n = 4,647) (n = 43,374)

Exhibit reads: Forty-two percent of higher-poverty elementary schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that 

were below the average for lower-poverty elementary schools in their district. 

Note: Higher-poverty schools are those with a poverty rate above the district average for that school grade level, and lower-poverty 

schools are those below the district average. 

Key Findings 22 
Looking at the more detailed set of categories, 17 percent of the higher-poverty elementary 

schools had personnel expenditures per pupil that were more than 10 percent below those in 

lower-poverty elementary schools in their district, an additional 14 percent were 4 percent to 

10 percent below lower-poverty schools, 23 percent were about the same (within 3 percentage 

points) as lower-poverty schools, and 46 percent had higher per-pupil personnel expenditures 

than lower-poverty schools (see Exhibit 10). 

Exhibit 10. Percentage of higher-poverty schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel 

expenditures, compared with the average for lower-poverty schools in their district, 

overall and by school grade level, 2008–09 

31% 34%

44%

33%

15% 16%

12%

12%

23% 23% 19%

18%

14% 12% 10%

12%

17% 15% 16%

24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High

schools

All

schools

More than 10% below

4% to 10% below

About the same (+/- 3%)

4% to 10% above

More than 10% above

(n = 21,991) (n = 5,495) (n = 4,647) (n = 43,374)

Exhibit reads: Seventeen percent of higher-poverty elementary schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that 

were more than 10 percent below the average for lower-poverty elementary schools in their district. 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. Higher-poverty schools are those with a poverty rate above the 

district average for that school grade level, and lower-poverty schools are those below the district average. 

At the middle school and high school levels, higher-poverty schools were less likely to have 

personnel expenditures per pupil that were 4 percent or more below the average for lowerpoverty schools in their district at the same school grade level (27 percent of higher-poverty 

middle schools and 26 percent of higher-poverty high schools, compared with 31 percent of 

higher-poverty elementary schools). Looking at the percentage of Title I districts where higherpoverty schools had lower per-pupil personnel expenditures than lower-poverty schools, the data 

show similar patterns (see Exhibits C-18 and C-19 in Appendix C). 

Key Findings 23 
Exhibits 11 and 12 present a similar analysis that uses a more restrictive definition of “higherpoverty” and “lower-poverty” schools based on school poverty quartiles. For this analysis, 

schools were divided into four poverty quartiles within each district by ranking all schools in the 

district by their percentage of children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches and then 

dividing the schools into four quartiles based on the percentage of all students (i.e., such that 

each quartile included schools serving approximately 25 percent of the students in the district). 

This analysis includes a smaller number of districts and schools because districts were only 

included if they had at least four schools. 

The poverty quartile approach showed a smaller proportion of higher-poverty schools as having 

lower per-pupil personnel expenditures than lower-poverty schools in their district, compared 

with the analysis based on the district average poverty rate. For example, at the elementary level, 

36 percent of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile had per-pupil personnel 

expenditures that were below the average for schools in the lowest-poverty quartile (see 

Exhibit 11), compared with 42 percent of higher-poverty schools based on the district average 

poverty rate (see Exhibit 9). Other grade levels show a similar pattern. 

Exhibit 11. Percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures below and above the average for schools in their district’s 

lowest-poverty quartile, overall and by school grade level, 2008–09 

64%

74% 73%

63%

36%

26% 27%

37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High 

schools

All 

schools

Below district average 

for lowest-poverty 

quartile schools

Above district average 

for lowest-poverty 

quartile schools

(n = 8,258) (n = 1,482) (n = 1,488) (n = 19,055)

Exhibit reads: Thirty-six percent of elementary schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures that were below the average for elementary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile of their 

district.

Note: School poverty quartiles were created separately for each district by ranking all schools in the district by their percentage of 

children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches and then dividing the schools into four quartiles such that each quartile included 

approximately 25 percent of the students in the district. 

Key Findings 24 
Looking at the more detailed set of categories finds similar patterns. For example, at the 

elementary level, 15 percent of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures that were more than 10 percent below the average for schools in the 

lowest-poverty quartile (see Exhibit 12), compared with 17 percent of higher-poverty schools 

based on the district average poverty rate (see Exhibit 10). 

Exhibit 12. Percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that had lower and 

higher per-pupil personnel expenditures, compared with the average for schools in 

their district’s lowest-poverty quartile, overall and by school grade level, 2008–09 

39%

50% 56%

42%

14%

14% 10%

12%

20%

19% 15%

17%

11%

9% 8%

10%

15% 8% 12% 19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary 

schools

Middle 

schools

High

schools

All

schools

More than 10% below

4% to 10% below

About the same (+/- 3%)

4% to 10% above

More than 10% above

(n = 8,258) (n = 1,482) (n = 1,488) (n = 19,055)

Exhibit reads: Fifteen percent of elementary schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures that were more than 10 percent below the average for elementary schools in the lowestpoverty quartile of their district. 

Note: School poverty quartiles were created separately for each district by ranking all schools in the district by their percentage of 

children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches and then dividing the schools into four quartiles such that each quartile included 

approximately 25 percent of the students in the district. 

Extent to Which Individual Higher-Need Schools Have Below-Average 

Expenditures 

The above analyses compare averages across all Title I schools (or higher-poverty schools) in a 

district to the average for all non–Title I schools (or lower-poverty schools). Alternatively, a 

more stringent requirement for comparability of expenditures could require that each Title I 

school have per-pupil expenditures that are above or equivalent to the average for non–Title I 

schools in the district. 

Key Findings 25 
Most Title I districts had at least one Title I school with per-pupil personnel 

expenditures below the district average for non–Title I schools at the same 

school grade level. 

At the elementary level, 74 percent of Title I districts with at least one Title I and one non–Title I 

school had at least one Title I school with per-pupil personnel expenditures that were below their 

district’s average for non–Title I elementary schools (see Exhibit 13). These percentages were 

lower for middle schools (59 percent) and high schools (54 percent). 

Exhibit 13. Percentage of Title I districts in which at least one higher-need school had per-pupil 

personnel expenditures below its district’s average for lower-need schools, overall 

and by school grade level, 2008–09 

74%

63% 59% 54% 55%

47%

82% 77%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

At Least One Title I School Is Below 

Average for Non–Title I Schools

At Least One Higher-Poverty School Is 

Below Average for Lower-Poverty Schools

Elementary schools Middle schools High schools All schools

(n = 2,700) (n = 859) (n = 426) (n = 8,279) (n = 5,490) (n = 2,572) (n = 1,956) (n =10,166)

Exhibit reads: Seventy-four percent of districts had at least one Title I elementary school that was below the average 

for non–Title I elementary schools in the district. 

Note: Higher-poverty schools are those with a poverty rate above the district average for that school grade level, and lower-poverty 

schools are those below the district average. 

Looking at expenditures by school poverty level shows similar patterns. Sixty-three percent of 

districts with two or more elementary schools had at least one higher-poverty school with perpupil personnel expenditures that were below the district’s average for lower-poverty schools. 

Among districts with middle schools, 55 percent had at least one school with per-pupil personnel 

expenditures that were below the district’s average; among districts with multiple high schools, 

the percentage was 47 percent. 

Key Findings 26 
Patterns for Other Expenditure Definitions 

Other expenditure categories examined in this study resulted in an 

increase in the percentages of Title I schools that had expenditures below 

their district’s averages for non–Title I schools at the same school grade 

level. 

In addition to collecting data on salary expenditures for all school-level instructional staff and 

instructional support staff, this study also collected data on three other categories of 

expenditures: instructional staff salaries only, teacher salaries only, and non-personnel 

expenditures. Readers should keep in mind that the data on non-personnel expenditures appear to 

be inconsistently reported across districts and states and should be viewed with caution. 

Compared with total personnel expenditures, a greater proportion of Title I schools had per-pupil 

instructional staff salary expenditures, teacher salary expenditures, and non-personnel 

expenditures that were below the average for non–Title I schools in the same district. For 

example, at the elementary school level, 46 percent of Title I schools had lower total personnel 

expenditures per pupil than the average for non–Title I schools in their district, compared with 

49 percent for expenditures on instructional staff salaries, 50 percent for expenditures on teacher 

salaries, and 54 percent for non-personnel expenditures (see Exhibit 14). Patterns were similar at 

the middle school and high school levels. 

Exhibit 14. Percentage of Title I schools that had lower per-pupil expenditures than the 

average for non–Title I schools in their district, by type of expenditure and grade 

level, 2008–09 

46% 42% 45% 49% 50% 47% 49% 48% 49%

54% 53% 54%

46% 43% 46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary schools Middle schools High schools

All school-level personnel Instructional staff Teachers

Non-personnel expenditures Personnel + non-personnel

(n = 16,662) (n = 2,237) (n = 1,193)

Exhibit reads: Forty-six percent of Title I elementary schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that were below 

the average for non–Title I elementary schools in their district. 

Key Findings 27 
Similarly, higher-poverty schools were more likely to have lower instructional staff, teacher, and 

non-personnel expenditures than the lower-poverty schools in their district, compared with the 

analysis of total personnel expenditures. At the elementary level, 42 percent of higher-poverty 

schools had total personnel expenditures per pupil that were below the district average for lowerpoverty schools, compared with 45 percent for instructional staff salary expenditures, 46 percent 

for teacher salary expenditures, and 51 percent for non-personnel expenditures (see Exhibit 15). 

This pattern of a greater percentage of higher-poverty schools with per-pupil instructional staff 

salary expenditures, teacher salary expenditures, and non-personnel expenditures (relative to 

total personnel expenditures) below the district average for lower-poverty schools holds true for 

middle schools and high schools. However, for nearly all of the expenditure definitions 

examined, districts were more likely to show higher expenditure levels in their higher-poverty 

schools than in their lower-poverty schools. 

Exhibit 15. Percentage of higher-poverty schools that had lower per-pupil expenditures than the 

average for lower-poverty schools in their district, by type of expenditure and grade 

level, 2008–09 

42% 38% 34%

45% 42% 39%

46% 44%

39%

51% 47% 46% 43%

38% 34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Elementary schools Middle schools High schools

All school-level personnel Instructional staff Teachers

Non-personnel expenditures Personnel + non-personnel

(n = 21,545) (n = 5,405) (n = 3,504)

Exhibit reads: Forty-two percent of higher-poverty elementary schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures that 

were below the average for lower-poverty elementary schools in their district. 

Note: Higher-poverty schools are those with a poverty rate above the district average for that school grade level, and lower-poverty 

schools are those below the district average. 

Key Findings 28 
Conclusions 

This report examined the extent to which state and local expenditures were equitably distributed 

across schools within districts, based on school-level expenditure data for the 2008–09 school 

year that districts and states reported in response to a requirement under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). 

Overall, the study found that per-pupil personnel expenditures from state and local funds often 

varied considerably across schools within districts, and nearly half of all schools (47 percent) had 

per-pupil personnel expenditures that were more than 10 percent above or below their district’s 

average. However, some expenditure differences were related to school grade level: high schools 

and middle schools tended to have higher per-pupil expenditures than elementary schools. 

After controlling for school grade level, the study found that from 42 percent to 46 percent of 

Title I schools (depending on school grade level) had per-pupil personnel expenditure levels that 

were below their district’s average for non–Title I schools at the same grade level, and from 

19 percent to 24 percent were more than 10 percent below the non–Title I school average. 

Conversely, 54 percent to 58 percent of Title I schools had expenditures that were above the 

non–Title I school average, and 29 percent to 39 percent were more than 10 percent above the 

non–Title I school average. Most Title I districts had at least one Title I school with personnel 

expenditures below the district average for non–Title I schools at the same grade level 

(74 percent at the elementary level, 59 percent at the middle school level, and 54 percent at the 

high school level). 

Similar patterns were found when comparing higher-poverty and lower-poverty schools within 

districts. For example, at the elementary level, 42 percent of higher-poverty schools had perpupil personnel expenditure levels that were below their district’s average for lower-poverty 

elementary schools, and 17 percent were more than 10 percent below the lower-poverty school 

average, while 31 percent were more than 10 percent above the lower-poverty school average. 

Other expenditure categories examined in this study showed an increase in the percentage of 

Title I schools with below-average expenditure levels, compared with total non-personnel 

expenditures. At the elementary level, for example, the percentage of Title I schools that had perpupil expenditures below their district’s average for non–Title I schools at the same grade level 

was 46 percent for total personnel expenditures, 49 percent for instructional staff expenditures, 

50 percent for teacher salary expenditures, and 54 percent for non-personnel expenditures. 

However, the non-personnel expenditure data that states and districts reported for this study 

appear to be much more inconsistently defined and reported and may not provide a reliable basis 

for comparing schools. 

It is worth noting that in some districts, a higher level of state and local resources were directed 

to Title I and higher-poverty schools relative to more advantaged schools in those districts. The 

example of these districts suggests that directing a higher level of state and local resources to 

high-need schools is an achievable goal. 

Conclusions 29 
Conclusions 30 

This page intentionally left blank 
References 

Fiscal Fairness Act, H.R. 1294, 112th Congress. 2011. 

Fiscal Fairness Act, S. 701, 112th Congress. 2011. 

Hall, D., and Ushomirsky, N. 2010. Close the hidden funding gaps in our schools. Washington, 

DC: Education Trust. 

Luebchow, L. 2009. Equitable resources in low income schools: Teacher equity and the federal 

Title I comparability requirement. Washington, DC: New America Foundation. 

McClure, P. 2008. The history of educational comparability in Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965. In Ensuring equal opportunity in public education: How 

local school district funding practices hurt disadvantaged students and what federal policy 

can do about it, ed. J. Podesta and C. Brown, 9–31. Washington, DC: Center for American 

Progress. 

Miller, R. 2010. Comparable, schmomparable: Evidence of inequity in the allocation of funds for 

teacher salary within California’s public school districts. Washington, DC: Center for 

American Progress. 

Office of Education. 1968. Title I Program Guide No. 44. 

Plotts, C., and Sable, J. 2010. Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary 

school districts in the United States: 2007–08 (NCES 2010–349). U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Roza, M. 2008. What if we closed the Title I comparability loophole? In Ensuring equal 

opportunity in public education: How local school district funding practices hurt 

disadvantaged students and what federal policy can do about it, ed. J. Podesta and C. Brown, 

59–71. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. 

Roza, M., Miller, L., and Hill, P. 2005. Strengthening Title I to help high-poverty schools: How 

Title I funds fit into district allocation patterns. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public 

Education, University of Washington. 

Sable, J., and Plotts, C. 2010. Documentation to the NCES Common Core of Data Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School year 2008–09 (NCES 2010–350 rev). 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service. 2009. State and local implementation of the No Child Left 

Behind Act, Volume VI: Targeting and uses of federal education funds. Washington, DC: 

Author. 

References 31 
References 32 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. 

2000. Study of education resources and federal funding: Final report. Washington, DC: 

Author. 
Appendix A: 

Data Reporting Instructions 

 

Appendix A 33 
Appendix A 34 

This page intentionally left blank 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

STUDY OF SCHOOL-LEVEL EXPENDITURES 

FORM A: 

DATA REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS FOR 

SCHOOL-LEVEL EXPENDITURE DATA FOR 

STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AND 

LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES 

November 19, 2009 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid OMB number. The valid OMB control number of this information 

collection is 1875-0255. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 

40 hours per district response and 741 hours per state response, including the time to review instructions, 

search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information 

collection. 

If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimates(s) or suggestion for improving 

this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, 20202-4651. 

If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write 

directly to: Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 

U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6W203, Washington, DC 20202-8240. 

 

Appendix A 35 
Appendix A 36 

This page intentionally left blank 
General Instructions for This Data Collection 

Purpose of data collection. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)

requires each school district receiving Title I, Part A ARRA funds to report a school-by-school 

listing of per-pupil educational expenditures from state and local funds for the 2008–09 school 

year to its state educational agency (SEA), and also requires states to report these data to the 

Department by March 31, 2010. These data will be used to examine the extent to which schoollevel education resources are distributed equitably within and across school districts. 

Data collection year. Please provide expenditure data for the full 2008–09 school year. You 

may use the standard start and end dates that are commonly used to define “school year” in your 

state. 

Format of materials. States should submit the school-level expenditure data in electronic form 

via e-mail, ftp transfer, or regular mail. To minimize reporting burden for states, we will accept 

data in whatever format is most convenient for you to provide. Data can be in ASCII (text) 

format, in spreadsheet files (e.g., Excel, Access), or in word processing files (e.g., WordPerfect 

or Microsoft Word). Please indicate the type of file and format (Windows, or Macintosh): 

• E-mail. Files may be sent via e-mail to SchoolLevelExpend@rti.org. 

• Secure electronic file upload site. Larger files may be submitted electronically through 

RTI’s file upload Web site at http://edsurveys.rti.org/SchoolLevelExpenditures. If you 

would like to use this option, please contact Ruth Heuer at RTI at (919) 541-6457 or 

heuer@rti.org to obtain a unique username and password. 

• Regular mail. Data may be sent on a CD-ROM or diskette to: 

Ruth Heuer 

RTI International 

P. O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 

A data collector from RTI International will contact each SEA to discuss this data collection to 

help determine the least burdensome way for states to provide the required information. 

Amount of time required to respond to this data collection. We ask that each district and state 

provide an estimate of the number of hours that they spent responding to this data collection, so 

that we may improve the accuracy of our burden hour estimates. 

If you have questions or would like more information about this study, you may contact Ruth 

Heuer at RTI International at (919) 541-6457 or heuer@rti.org, or Stephanie Stullich at the U.S. 

Department of Education at (202) 401-2342 or stephanie.stullich@ed.gov. 

Appendix A 37 
Thank you for your cooperation with this data collection. 

Requirement to Cooperate With This Data Collection 

The statutory language for this data collection requirement is included in the section of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that authorizes the appropriation of an 

additional $13 billion in Title I Part A funds, and reads as follows: 

For an additional amount for “Education for the Disadvantaged” to carry out Title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (“ESEA”), $13,000,000,000: 

Provided, That $5,000,000,000 shall be available for targeted grants under section 1125 

of the ESEA: Provided further, That $5,000,000,000 shall be available for education 

finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA: Provided further, That 

$3,000,000,000 shall be for school improvement grants under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA: Provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds available 

under this paragraph shall be required to file with the State educational agency, no later 

than December 1, 2009, a school-by-school listing of per-pupil educational expenditures 

from State and local sources during the 2008–2009 academic year: Provided further, That 

each State educational agency shall report that information to the Secretary of Education 

by March 31, 2010. 

Thus, the ARRA statute requires districts that receive Title I, Part A ARRA funds (i.e., funds 

allocated under the Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants formulas) to report 

school-level per-pupil expenditures. 

The Department has sought to minimize the burden of this mandated data collection on states 

and school districts in the following ways. First, we are defining “school-level expenditures” 

using expenditure classifications that are already used in existing National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) and U.S. Census Bureau fiscal data collections at the district level. Second, we 

are focusing on school-level expenditures related to instruction and support functions, and are 

not asking for school-level expenditure data for functions that are commonly accounted for at the 

district level such as facilities operations and maintenance, transportation, or food services. 

Third, we are asking respondents to exclude employee benefits, which may be supported and 

accounted for through multiple funding mechanisms. Finally, we are asking districts and states to 

only report those non-personnel expenditures that were tracked at the school level in district and 

state data systems for the 2008–09 school year. 

Appendix A 38 
Definition of School-Level Expenditures to Be Included in This Data Collection 

In general, LEAs and SEAs should report school-level expenditures that are associated with 

regular K–12 instruction, instructional support, pupil support, and school administration. More 

specifically, LEAs and SEAs should report the following four categories of school-level 

expenditures from state and local funds: 

• Personnel salaries at the school level for all school-level instructional and support staff, 

based on the Census Bureau’s classification used in the F-33 survey of local government 

finances. 

• Personnel salaries at the school level for instructional staff only. 

• Personnel salaries at the school level for teachers only. 

• Non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if available). 

Table A-1 shows the Census Bureau’s classification of four types of school-level personnel that 

are involved in instructional and support functions, based on the F-33 survey of local 

government finances (see Table A-2 for more detail): 

Table A-1 

Types of School-Level Personnel Involved in Instruction and Support Functions 

Instruction Includes teachers and instructional aides. 

Support services—pupils Includes guidance counselors, nurses, attendance officers, 

speech pathologists, and other staff who provide support 

services for students. 

Support services—instructional staff Includes salaries for staff involved in curriculum 

development, staff training, operating the library, media 

and computer centers. 

Support services—school administration Includes principals and other staff involved in school 

administration. 

Additional instructions for reporting school-level expenditures. LEAs and SEAs should use 

the following guidelines, to the extent possible, in compiling data on school-level expenditures: 

• Exclude expenditures from federal program funds. However, a district may include funds 

from Impact Aid or from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) if the district is using 

those funds under the authority in Impact Aid. 

• Exclude expenditures from special education funds. 

• Exclude expenditures for programs that are not associated with regular K–12 instruction, 

instructional support, and school administration (e.g., preschool, adult education, and 

school nutrition programs). 

• Exclude programs that serve students from more than one school attendance area at a 

single school site (e.g., summer school programs sometimes are housed in a subset of the 

district’s schools but serve students from throughout the school district). 

Appendix A 39 
LEAs and SEAs may also exclude expenditures made by regional education agencies for schoollevel resources, if data on the amount of resources that these regional agencies provided in 

individual schools is not currently available. 

Salary expenditures. LEAs and SEAs should use the following guidelines, to the extent 

possible, in compiling school-level salary expenditures: 

• Include all types of salary expenditures, including not only base salaries but also 

incentive pay, bonuses, and supplemental stipends for mentoring or other additional roles. 

• Exclude expenditures for employee benefits. 

Non-personnel expenditures. LEAs and SEAs should include non-personnel expenditures 

associated with instruction, instructional support, and pupil support, and school administration, if 

this information is available at the school-level. This may include the following types of 

expenditures: 

• Professional development for teachers and other staff. 

• Instructional materials and supplies. 

• Computers, software, and other technology. 

• Contracted services such as distance learning services. 

• Library books and media center learning materials. 

Table A-3 provides specifications for the data files that LEAs and SEAs are expected to submit 

in response to this requirement. LEAs and SEAs should also complete the checklist in Table A-4 

to indicate the characteristics of the expenditure data that they are submitting. 

Appendix A 40 
Rationale for the Department’s Approach for Meeting the ARRA Requirement to 

Collect Data on School-Level Expenditures 

The Department of Education recognizes that reporting school-level expenditure data may be a 

challenging task for many states and school districts, because state and district financial data 

systems that were in place for the 2008–09 school year may not have tracked expenditures for 

individual schools. However, we also know that school districts typically have personnel data 

systems that can identify which staff are assigned to each school, and at a minimum they should 

be able to extract and report salary data for school-level staff; indeed, many states already collect 

and compile such school-level personnel expenditure data. Data on personnel salaries do not 

provide a complete picture of school-level resources, but they account for the majority of 

expenditures that occur at the school level. In addition, some districts and states have more 

comprehensive data systems in place that can track and report non-personnel expenditures as 

well. 

Rationale for specific components of this data collection: 

• Salaries for all school-level instructional and support staff. This is expected to capture 

the majority of school-level expenditures for instructional and support functions.

• Salaries for instructional staff only and for teachers only. Teachers and other 

instructional staff are particularly important to the educational opportunities provided to 

students, and the study will examine the distribution of these resources separately, in 

addition to examining the distribution of total reported school-level expenditures. 

• Non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if available). Non-personnel 

expenditures are an important component of total educational resources provided in a 

school. Collecting these data will permit a more complete examination of the distribution 

of school-level expenditures where this is supported by existing data systems. 

• Inclusion of all types of salary expenditures, including not only base salaries but also 

incentive pay, bonuses, and supplemental stipends for mentoring or other additional 

roles. Supplemental pay can be an important component of total staff compensation and 

should be included in an examination of school-level expenditures. 

• Exclusion of expenditures from federal programs. The ARRA requirement is to report 

only expenditures from state and local funding sources, because federal programs are 

intended to supplement an equitably-distributed base of state and local resources. 

• Exclusion of special education expenditures. Because special education expenditures 

will vary in relation to the numbers and types of students with disabilities in a particular 

school, excluding these expenditures, if possible, would provide a more meaningful 

picture of the equitable distribution of school-level funds. 

• Exclusion of employee benefits. State and district practices for supporting and 

accounting for employee benefits vary widely. Excluding employee benefits will reduce 

the burden of this data collection for states and districts and also reduce potential 

problems with the comparability of the data.

Appendix A 41 
Specifications for Data Submissions 

Table A-2 

Expenditures Associated With Instruction Based on the 

Census Bureau’s F-33 Survey of Local Government Finances 

Function 

Code Activity Description 

Personnel 

Expenditures Description/Comments 

1000 Instruction Includes the activities 

dealing directly with the 

interaction between 

teachers and students. 

Teaching may be provided 

for students in a school 

classroom. Expenditures are 

for teachers who provide 

instruction to students in a 

classroom but may include 

personnel who teach in 

another location such as 

home or hospital or in other 

learning situations such as 

those involving cocurricular 

activities. 

Personnel 

costs 

associated 

with salaries 

only (Object 

series 

100) 

These are amounts paid to 

both permanent and 

temporary school district 

employees, including 

personnel substituting for 

those in permanent positions. 

This includes gross salaries 

for personal services 

rendered while on the payroll 

of the school district. Object 

series can be broken out 

further, for example, to 

distinguish between: 

• Teachers (Object series 

101) and 

• Instructional Aides (Object 

series 102) 

2100 Support 

services—

pupils 

These are activities 

designed to assess and 

improve the well-being of 

students and to supplement 

the teaching process. This 

includes expenditures for 

guidance, health, 

attendance, and speech 

pathology services etc. 

Same 

2200 Support 

services—

instructional 

staff 

These are activities 

associated with assisting the 

instructional staff with the 

content and process of 

providing learning 

experiences for students. 

This includes, for example, 

expenditures for staff 

involved in curriculum 

development, staff training, 

operating the library, media 

and computer centers. 

Same 

2400 Support 

services— 

school 

administration 

These activities relate to the 

overall administrative 

responsibility for a school. 

Same 

Appendix A 42 
Table A-3 

Specifications for Data to Be Included in LEA and SEA Reports 

on School-Level Expenditures in 2008–09 

Field Item Notes 

1 State Name To be pre-populated from EDFacts. 

2 LEA ID (NCES ID code) To be pre-populated from EDFacts. 

3 LEA Name To be pre-populated from EDFacts. 

4 School ID (NCES ID code) To be pre-populated from EDFacts. 

5 School Name To be pre-populated from EDFacts. (Should include all 

public schools in each Title I LEA, i.e., both Title I schools 

and non–Title I schools.) 

6 School Title I Status To be pre-populated from EDFacts. (Indicates whether 

school is a Title I school or a non–Title I school.) 

7 Personnel Salaries at School Level—

Total 

This would include the salaries for all school-level staff 

associated with the functions shown in Table A-2, i.e., 

teachers, paraprofessionals, principal, and other specialized 

staff who work at the school. The expenditures for a school 

would be the sum of the salaries for all such staff employed 

at the school; however, these expenditures should not 

include salaries paid from federal program funds or from 

special education funds. 

8 Personnel Salaries at School Level—

Instructional Staff Only 

This is a subset of item 7 and should include salaries for 

instructional staff only. 

9 Personnel Salaries at School Level—

Teachers Only 

This is a subset of item 8 and should include salaries for 

teachers only. 

10 Non-Personnel Expenditures at 

School Level (if available) 

This would include any non-personnel expenditures that the 

district or state accounts for at the school level. However, 

these expenditures should not include expenditures from 

federal program funds or from special education funds. 

11 Student Enrollment (Fall 2008) To be pre-populated from EDFacts. 

12 Personnel Salary Expenditures per 

Student Enrolled 

Calculate Line 7 divided by Line 11. States are asked to 

perform this calculation as a check on the accuracy of the 

reported data. 

Appendix A 43 
Appendix A 44 

Table A-4 

Checklist on Definitions of School-Level Expenditures 

(asterisk indicates preferred definition) 

 Included Excluded Not Applicable

Definitions for All School-Level Expenditures 

• Expenditures paid from federal funds except Impact Aid and 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund if used under the Impact Aid 

authority ____ ____* ____ 

• Expenditures paid from federal Impact Aid funds and State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund if used under the Impact Aid authority ____* ____ ____ 

• Special education ____ ____* ____ 

• Adult education ____ ____* ____ 

• School nutrition programs ____ ____* ____ 

• Summer school programs ____ ____* ____ 

• Preschool programs ____ ____* ____ 

• Expenditures made by regional educational agencies on behalf 

of schools ____ ____ ____ 

Definitions for Personnel Expenditures 

• Incentive pay and/or bonuses ____* ____ ____ 

• Supplemental pay for additional roles ____* ____ ____ 

• Employee benefits ____ ____* ____ 

Definitions for Non-Personnel Expenditures 

• Professional development ____* ____ ____ 

• Instructional materials/supplies ____* ____ ____ 

• Computers/software/technology ____* ____ ____ 

• Contracted services ____* ____ ____ 

• Library books/media center materials ____* ____ ____ 

• Other non-personnel expenditures (please specify 

________________________________________) ____ ____ ____ 

Table A-5 

Estimated Number of Hours Spent Responding to This Data Collection 

School Districts: Average number of hours per school that the 

district used to prepare each school’s expenditure data. _____ hours per school 

School Districts: Additional number of hours for the district to 

review existing data systems, communicate within the district or with 

their SEA concerning any procedural questions for preparing the 

estimates, and time to review and submit their data files to their SEA.

_____ hours per district 

States: Number of hours spent reviewing existing data systems, 

developing plans to conduct this data collection, requesting the data 

from school districts, answering questions from districts, following up 

with non-responding districts, compiling and reviewing the data file, 

and submitting the data file to the U.S. Department of Education. 

_____ hours per state 
Appendix B: 

Statutory Language for Title I Comparability Requirement: 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I, Section 1120A 

SEC. 1120A. FISCAL REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT—A local educational agency may receive funds under this 

part for any fiscal year only if the State educational agency involved finds that the local 

educational agency has maintained the agency’s fiscal effort in accordance with section 9521. 

(b) FEDERAL FUNDS TO SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT, NON-FEDERAL FUNDS– 

(1) IN GENERAL—A State educational agency or local educational agency shall use 

Federal funds received under this part only to supplement the funds that would, in the 

absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the 

education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant 

such funds. 

(2) SPECIAL RULE—No local educational agency shall be required to provide services 

under this part through a particular instructional method or in a particular instructional 

setting in order to demonstrate such agency’s compliance with paragraph (1). 

(c) COMPARABILITY OF SERVICES— 

(1) IN GENERAL— 

(A) COMPARABLE SERVICES—Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), 

a local educational agency may receive funds under this part only if State and 

local funds will be used in schools served under this part to provide services that, 

taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services in schools that are not 

receiving funds under this part. 

(B) SUBSTANTIALLY COMPARABLE SERVICES—If the local educational 

agency is serving all of such agency’s schools under this part, such agency may 

receive funds under this part only if such agency will use State and local funds to 

provide services that, taken as a whole, are substantially comparable in each 

school. 

(C) BASIS—A local educational agency may meet the requirements of 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) on a grade-span by grade-span basis or a school-byschool basis. 

(2) WRITTEN ASSURANCE— 

(A) EQUIVALENCE—A local educational agency shall be considered to have 

met the requirements of paragraph (1) if such agency has filed with the State 

educational agency a written assurance that such agency has established and 

implemented— 

Appendix B 45 
Appendix B 46 

(i) a local educational agency-wide salary schedule; 

(ii) a policy to ensure equivalence among schools in teachers, 

administrators, and other staff; and 

(iii) a policy to ensure equivalence among schools in the provision of 

curriculum materials and instructional supplies. 

(B) DETERMINATIONS—For the purpose of this subsection, in the 

determination of expenditures per pupil from State and local funds, or 

instructional salaries per pupil from State and local funds, staff salary differentials 

for years of employment shall not be included in such determinations. 

(C) EXCLUSIONS—A local educational agency need not include unpredictable 

changes in student enrollment or personnel assignments that occur after the 

beginning of a school year in determining comparability of services under this 

subsection. 

(3) PROCEDURES AND RECORDS—Each local educational agency assisted under this 

part shall— 

(A) develop procedures for compliance with this subsection; and 

(B) maintain records that are updated biennially documenting such agency’s 

compliance with this subsection. 

(4) INAPPLICABILITY—This subsection shall not apply to a local educational agency 

that does not have more than one building for each grade span. 

(5) COMPLIANCE—For the purpose of determining compliance with paragraph (1), a 

local educational agency may exclude State and local funds expended for— 

(A) language instruction educational programs; and 

(B) the excess costs of providing services to children with disabilities as 

determined by the local educational agency. 

(d) EXCLUSION OF FUNDS—For the purpose of complying with subsections (b) and (c), a 

State educational agency or local educational agency may exclude supplemental State or local 

funds expended in any school attendance area or school for programs that meet the intent and 

purposes of this part. 
Appendix C: 

Supplemental Exhibits 

Exhibit C-1. Number of school districts and schools for which school expenditure and enrollment 

data were reported and number that were included in the analyses in this report, 

2008–09 

Category 

Number 

of 

school 

districts 

Percent 

of 

school 

districts 

Number 

of 

schools 

Percent 

of 

schools 

Total with reported school expenditure and enrollment data 15,610 100 90,544 100 

Excluded from analysis 2,385 15 7,551 8 

Included in analysis 13,225 85 82,993 92 

Note: According to the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD), in 2008-09 there were 13,809 regular school districts and 98,706 public 

schools. The number of school districts included in the analysis file for this report amounted (13,225) amounted to 96 percent of the 

total number of districts reported in the CCD. The number of schools included in the analysis file for this report amounted (82,993) 

amounted to 84 percent of the total number of schools reported in the CCD. 

Exhibit C-2. Districts and schools excluded from analysis, 2008–09 

Reason for exclusion 

Number of 

districts 

Percent of 

excluded 

districts

Number of 

schools 

Percent of 

excluded 

schools 

Total 2,385 100 7,551 100 

Non–Title I district (out of scope) 1,801 76 3,943 52 

No Title I schools in district 1,801 76 3,943 52 

Data quality issues 584 24 3,608 48 

State-reported expenditures included federal 

funds (New Jersey) 502 21 2,106 28 

Very low expenditures (<$1,000 per pupil) 77 3 1,367 18 

Very high expenditures (>$30,000 per pupil) 5 # 135 2 

# Rounds to zero. 

Note: Schools from 13,225 districts are included on the analysis file and an additional 2,385 districts have no schools on the 

analysis file for the reasons outlined in this table. Many districts have schools on the analysis file as well as schools that were 

removed for the reasons shown in this exhibit; such districts are not included in these district counts. Districts that had only non–

Title I schools were not required to report on school expenditures and are excluded from analyses. New Jersey reported expenditure 

data incorrectly and are excluded from analyses. 

Appendix C 47 
Exhibit C-3. Number and percentage of schools with expenditure data and demographic data, 

2008–09 

Category Number Percent 

Schools that reported valid expenditure data 82,993 100 

Schools with data on school-level expenditures 

Total personnel salaries 82,446 99 

Instructional staff salaries 79,148 95 

Teacher salaries 79,234 95 

Non-personnel expendituresa 60,166 72 

Schools with demographic data 

School poverty levelb 80,858 97 

School Title I status 82,907 100 

School grade level 80,571 97 a

 The data reporting instructions asked respondents to report non-personnel expenditures “if available.” The 60,166 schools with

data on non-personnel expenditures do not include schools with reported non-personnel expenditures of $0 (8,072 schools); these

were considered to be missing data rather than zero values. 

b

 School poverty level was derived from the count of students that were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 

Exhibit C-4. Descriptive statistics for school-level expenditure dataset, 2008–09 

Category 

Average 

per-pupil 

expenditures 

Average 

school 

expenditures 

Total reported 

expenditures 

Percent of 

all reported 

expenditures 

Total personnel salaries $3,607 $1,945,751 $160,432,892,624 94 

Instructional staff salaries 3,052 1,617,548 128,030,138,991 75 

Teacher salaries 2,867 1,518,061 120,264,707,617 70 

Non-personnel expenditures 311 177,405 10,657,411,142 6 

Exhibit C-5. Descriptive statistics for school-level per-pupil expenditure amounts for various 

expenditure types and levels, 2008–09 

Percentile 

Total 

personnel 

salaries 

Instructional 

staff salaries 

Teacher 

salaries 

Non-personnel 

expenditures 

Personnel and 

non-personnel 

expenditures 

Average $3,607 $3,052 $2,867 $311 $3,828 

Minimum 1,000 1 0 0 1,011 

5th percentile 2,215 1,854 1,741 47 2,344 

10th percentile 2,485 2,106 1,982 65 2,620 

25th percentile 2,967 2,507 2,352 109 3,122 

50th percentile 3,539 2,972 2,790 190 3,730 

75th percentile 4,324 3,587 3,372 356 4,608 

90th percentile 5,459 4,510 4,204 706 5,838 

95th percentile 6,388 5,290 4,891 1,153 6,869 

Maximum 29,785 29,785 26,266 25,101 29,913 

Appendix C 48 
Exhibit C-6. Distribution of schools that had personnel expenditure data, by amount of personnel 

expenditures per pupil, 2008–09 

Amount of personnel expenditures per pupil Number of schools Percent of schools 

Total 83,948 100 

$1–$999 1,367 2 

$1,000–$1,499 503 1 

$1,500–$1,999 1,672 2 

$2,000–$2,499 6,337 8 

$2,500–$2,999 13,166 16 

$3,000–$3,499 18,107 22 

$3,500–$3,999 15,384 18 

$4,000–$4,999 15,386 18 

$5,000–$5,999 6,420 8 

$6,000–$6,999 2,745 3 

$7,000–$7,999 1,108 1 

$8,000–$8,999 533 1 

$9,000–$9,999 300 # 

$10,000–$14,999 527 1 

$15,000–$19,999 164 # 

$20,000–$24,999 59 # 

$25,000–$29,999 35 # 

$30,000 or more 135 # 

# Rounds to zero. 

Note: These data include schools contained in the analysis file plus those schools that were removed from the analysis file because 

per-pupil expenditures were less than $1,000 or more than $30,000. These data exclude 547 schools that reported some 

expenditure amounts but did not report total personnel expenditure amount. 

Exhibit C-7. Average personnel expenditures per pupil, overall and by school grade level, 

2008–09 

Type of school 

Number of 

schools 

Average personnel 

expenditures per pupil 

Elementary schools 48,003 $3,543 

Middle schools 15,431 3,646 

High schools 16,673 3,682 

Schools with nonstandard grade level configurations 1,700 3,623 

Schools missing grade level information 639 3,900 

All schools 82,446 3,607 

Note: School expenditure definitions were not always consistent across states, and readers should view across-state averages with 

caution. 

Appendix C 49 
Appendix C 50 

Exhibit C-8. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which personnel expenditure levels 

were higher for high schools or middle schools than for elementary schools, 

2008–09 

Category Number Percent 

Districts with at least one elementary school and at least one high school 9,178 100 

Number and percent in which average per-pupil personnel expenditures were 

higher for high schools than for elementary schools 6,422 70 

Districts with at least one elementary school and at least one middle school 7,518 100 

Number and percent in which average per-pupil personnel expenditures were 

higher for middle schools than for elementary schools 4,865 65 

Exhibit C-9. Number of Title I districts that were included in comparability analyses, overall and 

by school grade level, 2008–09 

Category 

Elementary 

schools 

Middle 

schools 

High 

schools 

All 

schools 

Title I districts with schools at specified grade level 

All districts in dataset 11,901 7,660 9,868 13,225 

At least one Title I school and one non–Title I 

school 2,700 859 426 8,279 

At least one higher-poverty school and one lowerpoverty school 5,490 2,572 1,956 10,166 
Appendix C 51 Exhibit C-10. Number and percentage of schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the a

their district, 2008–09 Category Number of elementary schools Percent of elementary schools Number of middle schools Percent of middle schools Number of high schools Percent of high schools Al

Total number of schools 41,944 100 10,461 100 9,001 100 

Below district average 20,150 48 5,191 50 4,319 48 

Above district average 21,794 52 5,270 50 4,682 52 

Exhibit C-11. Number and percentage of schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel expenditures, com

average for schools in their district, 2008–09 Category Number of elementary schools Percent of elementary schools Number of middle schools Percent of middle schools Number of high schools Percent of high schools Al

Total number of schools 41,944 100 10,461 100 9,001 100 

Schools were lower 13,572 32 3,317 32 2,859 32 

More than 10% lower 5,989 14 1,290 12 1,306 15 

7%–10% lower 3,288 8 841 8 636 7 

4%–6% lower 4,295 10 1,186 11 917 10 

About the same (+/− 3%) 12,868 31 3,618 35 2,732 30 

1%–3% lower 4,973 12 1,419 14 1,108 12 

+/− 1% 3,350 8 965 9 763 8 

1%–3% higher 4,545 11 1,234 12 861 10 

Schools were higher 15,504 37 3,526 34 3,410 38 

4%–6% higher 3,656 9 961 9 572 6 7%–10% higher 2,781 7 730 7 405 4 More than 10% higher 9,067 22 1,835 18 2,433 27 
Appendix C 52 Exhibit C-12. Number and percentage of Title I schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and abov

Title I schools in their district, 2008–09 Category Number of elementary schools Percent of elementary schools Number of middle schools Percent of middle schools Number of high schools Percent of high schools Al

Total number of schools 17,391 100 2,265 100 1,536 100 

Title I schools were below average 7,962 46 950 42 697 45 

Title I schools were above average 9,429 54 1,315 58 839 55 

Exhibit C-13. Number and percentage of Title I schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel expenditures

average for non–Title I schools in their district, 2008–09 Category Number of elementary schools Percent of elementary schools Number of middle schools Percent of middle schools Number of high schools Percent of high schools Al

Total number of schools 17,391 100 2,265 100 1,536 100 

Title I schools were lower 6,023 35 739 33 527 34 

More than 10% lower 3,649 21 430 19 370 24 

7%–10% lower 1,086 6 133 6 86 6 4%–6% lower 1,288 7 176 8 71 5 

About the same (+/− 3%) 3,833 22 438 19 258 17 

1%–3% lower 1,399 8 152 7 124 8 +/− 1% 1,037 6 126 6 72 5 

1%–3% higher 1,397 8 160 7 62 4 

Title I schools were higher 7,535 43 1,088 48 751 49 

4%–6% higher 1,315 8 166 7 71 5 

7%–10% higher 1,112 6 132 6 81 5 More than 10% higher 5,108 29 790 35 599 39 
Appendix C 53 Exhibit C-14. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had per-pupil personnel expenditu

the average for their non–Title I schools, 2008–09 Category Number of districts (elementary school analysis) Percent of districts (elementary school analysis) Number of districts (middle school analysis) Percent of districts (middle school analysis) Number of districts (high school analysis) Percent of districts (high school analysis) N

dis

Total number of districts 2,700 100 859 100 426 100 

Title I schools were below average 1,267 47 395 46 165 39 

Title I schools were above average 1,433 53 464 54 261 61 

Exhibit C-15. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had lower and higher personnel ex

than non–Title I schools, 2008–09 Category Number of districts (elementary school analysis) Percent of districts (elementary school analysis) Number of districts (middle school analysis) Percent of districts (middle school analysis) Number of districts (high school analysis) Percent of districts (high school analysis) N

dis

Total number of districts 2,700 100 859 100 426 100 

Title I schools were lower 908 34 306 36 123 29 

More than 10% lower 534 20 198 23 90 21 7%–10% lower 163 6 52 6 18 4 

4%–6% lower 211 8 56 7 15 4 

About the same (+/− 3%) 753 28 196 23 77 18 

1%–3% lower 271 10 71 8 29 7 

+/− 1% 201 7 50 6 21 5 

1%–3% higher 281 10 75 9 27 6 

Title I schools were higher 1,039 38 357 42 226 53 

4%–6% higher 259 10 68 8 28 7 

7%–10% higher 194 7 52 6 18 4 

More than 10% higher 586 22 237 28 180 42 
Appendix C 54 Exhibit C-16. Number and percentage of higher-poverty schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures below 

for lower-poverty schools in their district, 2008–09 Category Number of elementary schools Percent of elementary schools Number of middle schools Percent of middle schools Number of high schools Percent of high schools Al

Total number of schools 21,991 100 5,495 100 4,647 100 

Higher-poverty schools were below average 9,254 42 2,097 38 1,597 34 

Higher-poverty schools were above average 12,737 58 3,398 62 3,050 66 

Exhibit C-17. Number and percentage of higher-poverty schools that had lower and higher per-pupil personnel exp

with the average for lower-poverty schools in their district, 2008–09 Category Number of elementary schools Percent of elementary schools Number of middle schools Percent of middle schools Number of high schools Percent of high schools A

Total number of schools 21,991 100 5,495 100 4,647 100 

Higher-poverty schools were lower 6,769 31 1,493 27 1,185 26 

More than 10% lower 3,751 17 817 15 721 16 

7%–10% lower 1,359 6 310 6 206 4 

4%–6% lower 1,659 8 366 7 258 6 

About the same (+/− 3%) 5,139 23 1,262 23 869 19 

1%–3% lower 1,848 8 453 8 302 6 +/− 1% 1,372 6 334 6 252 5 

1%–3% higher 1,919 9 475 9 315 7 

Higher-poverty schools were higher 10,083 46 2,740 50 2,593 56 

4%–6% higher 1,749 8 444 8 294 6 

7%–10% higher 1,553 7 410 7 266 6 More than 10% higher 6,781 31 1,886 34 2,033 44 
Appendix C 55 Exhibit C-18. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which higher-poverty schools had per-pupil personnel e

and above the average for their lower-poverty schools, 2008–09 Category Number of districts (elementary school analysis) Percent of districts (elementary school analysis) Number of districts (middle school analysis) Percent of districts (middle school analysis) Number of districts (high school analysis) Percent of districts (high school analysis) N

dis

Total number of districts 5,490 100 2,572 100 1,956 100 

Higher-poverty schools were below average 2,354 43 1,087 42 670 34 

Higher-poverty schools were above average 3,136 57 1,485 58 1,286 66 

Exhibit C-19. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which higher-poverty schools had lower and higher per-

expenditures than their lower-poverty schools, 2008–09 

Category 

Number of 

districts 

(elementary 

school 

analysis) 

Percent of 

districts 

(elementary 

school 

analysis) 

Number of 

districts 

(middle 

school 

analysis) 

Percent of 

districts 

(middle 

school 

analysis) 

Number of 

districts 

(high 

school 

analysis) 

Percent of 

districts 

(high 

school 

analysis) 

N

Total number of districts 5,490 100 2,572 100 1,956 100 

Higher-poverty schools were lower 1,675 31 820 32 500 26 

More than 10% lower 944 17 499 19 316 16 7%–10% lower 323 6 140 5 71 4 

4%–6% lower 408 7 181 7 113 6 

About the same (+/− 3%) 1,428 26 590 23 371 19 

1%–3% lower 509 9 202 8 124 6 

+/− 1% 383 7 151 6 113 6 

1%–3% higher 536 10 237 9 134 7 

Higher-poverty schools were higher 2,387 43 1,162 45 1,085 55 

4%–6% higher 502 9 212 8 143 7 7%–10% higher 375 7 187 7 122 6 More than 10% higher 1,510 28 763 30 820 42 
Appendix C 56 Exhibit C-20. Number and percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that had per-pupil perso

below and above the average for schools in their district’s lowest-poverty quartile, 2008–09 Category Number of elementary schools Percent of elementary schools Number of middle schools Percent of middle schools Number of high schools Percent of high schools Al

Total number of schools 8,258 100 1,482 100 1,488 100 

Highest-poverty schools were below average 2,945 36 383 26 397 27 

Highest-poverty schools were above average 5,313 64 1,099 74 1,091 73 

Note: School poverty quartiles were created separately for each district by ranking all schools in the district by their percentage of children eligible for free then dividing the schools into four quartiles such that each quartile included approximately 25 percent of the students in the district. Exhibit C-21. Number and percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that had lower and high

personnel expenditures, compared with the average for schools in their district’s lowest-poverty qua

Category Number of elementary schools Percent of elementary schools Number of middle schools Percent of middle schools Number of high schools Percent of high schools A

Total number of schools 8,258 100 1,482 100 1,488 100 

Highest-poverty schools were lower 2,161 26 252 17 289 19 

More than 10% lower 1,247 15 119 8 173 12 

7%–10% lower 403 5 65 4 51 3 

4%–6% lower 511 6 68 5 65 4 

About the same (+/− 3%) 1,686 20 282 19 219 15 

1%–3% lower 602 7 94 6 75 5 +/− 1% 419 5 77 5 63 4 

1%–3% higher 665 8 111 7 81 5 

Highest-poverty schools were higher 4,411 53 948 64 980 66 

4%–6% higher 648 8 111 7 78 5 

7%–10% higher 545 7 97 7 72 5 More than 10% higher 3,218 39 740 50 830 56 

Note: School poverty quartiles were created separately for each district by ranking all schools in the district by their percentage of children eligible for free then dividing the schools into four quartiles such that each quartile included approximately 25 percent of the students in the district. 
Appendix C 57 Exhibit C-22. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which schools in the district’s highest-poverty quartile h

personnel expenditures that were below and above the average for schools in the district’s lowest-po2008–09 Category Number of districts (elementary school analysis) Percent of districts (elementary school analysis) Number of districts (middle school analysis) Percent of districts (middle school analysis) Number of districts (high school analysis) Percent of districts (high school analysis) N

dis

Total number of districts 2,821 100 720 100 628 100 

Highest-poverty schools were below average 1,007 36 181 25 157 25 

Highest-poverty schools were above average 1,814 64 539 75 471 75 

Note: School poverty quartiles were created separately for each district by ranking all schools in the district by their percentage of children eligible for free then dividing the schools into four quartiles such that each quartile included approximately 25 percent of the students in the district. Exhibit C-23. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which schools in the district’s highest-poverty quartile h

per-pupil personnel expenditures than schools in the district’s lowest-poverty quartile, 2008–09 

Category 

Number of 

districts 

(elementary 

school 

analysis) 

Percent of 

districts 

(elementary 

school 

analysis) 

Number of 

districts 

(middle 

school 

analysis) 

Percent of 

districts 

(middle 

school 

analysis) 

Number of 

districts 

(high 

school 

analysis) 

Percent of 

districts 

(high 

school 

analysis) 

d

Total number of districts 2,821 100 720 100 628 100 

Highest-poverty schools were lower 699 25 123 17 113 18 

More than 10% lower 381 14 55 8 61 10 

7%–10% lower 137 5 34 5 24 4 

4%–6% lower 181 6 34 5 28 4 

About the same (+/− 3%) 634 22 140 19 99 16 

1%–3% lower 222 8 45 6 35 6 +/− 1% 166 6 34 5 23 4 

1%–3% higher 246 9 61 8 41 7 

Highest-poverty schools were higher 1,488 53 457 63 416 66 

4%–6% higher 261 9 65 9 51 8 

7%–10% higher 240 9 55 8 31 5 More than 10% higher 987 35 337 47 334 53 

Note: School poverty quartiles were created separately for each district by ranking all schools in the district by their percentage of children eligible for free then dividing the schools into four quartiles such that each quartile included approximately 25 percent of the students in the district.
Exhibit C-24. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which one or more higher-need schools 

had per-pupil personnel expenditures below their district’s average for lower-need 

schools, 2008–09 

Category Number Percent 

District had one or more Title I schools below average for non–Title I schools 

Elementary schools 1,991 74 

Middle schools 511 59 

High schools 228 54 

All schools 6,821 82 

District had one or more higher-poverty schools below average for lower-poverty schools 

Elementary schools 3,448 63 

Middle schools 1,412 55 

High schools 924 47 

All schools 7,870 77 

Appendix C 58 
Exhibit C-25. Percentage of Title I schools that had lower per-pupil expenditures, compared with 

the average for non–Title I schools, by type of expenditure and grade level, 2008–09 

Expenditure type and school grade level 

0 percent or 

more below 

4 percent or 

more below 

More than 10 

percent below 

All school-level personnel 

Elementary schools 46 35 21 

Middle schools 42 33 19 

High schools 45 34 24 

All schools 52 43 31 

Instructional staff 

Elementary schools 49 38 24 

Middle schools 47 36 23 

High schools 48 39 27 

All schools 51 42 30 

Teachers 

Elementary schools 50 39 24 

Middle schools 49 38 25 

High schools 49 41 28 

All schools 54 45 33 

Non-personnel expenditures 

Elementary schools 54 49 41 

Middle schools 53 49 41 

High schools 54 51 48 

All schools 71 68 63 

Personnel and non-personnel expenditures 

Elementary schools 46 35 21 

Middle schools 43 33 20 

High schools 46 36 25 

All schools 55 46 34 

Appendix C 59 
Exhibit C-26. Percentage of higher-poverty schools that had lower per-pupil expenditures, 

compared with the average for lower-poverty schools, by type of expenditure and 

grade level, 2008–09 

Expenditure type and school grade level 

0 percent or 

more below 

4 percent or 

more below 

More than 10 

percent below 

All school-level personnel 

Elementary schools 42 31 17 

Middle schools 38 27 15 

High schools 34 26 16 

All schools 45 36 24 

Instructional staff 

Elementary schools 45 34 19 

Middle schools 42 31 18 

High schools 39 29 19 

All schools 45 36 25 

Teachers 

Elementary schools 46 35 20 

Middle schools 44 32 18 

High schools 39 30 19 

All schools 47 38 26 

Non-personnel expenditures 

Elementary schools 51 46 37 

Middle schools 47 42 33 

High schools 46 42 36 

All schools 65 62 56 

Personnel and non-personnel expenditures 

Elementary schools 43 31 17 

Middle schools 38 28 15 

High schools 34 26 15 

All schools 47 38 26 

Appendix C 60 
Exhibit C-27. Percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had lower per-pupil 

expenditures than non–Title I schools, on average, by type of expenditure and 

school grade level, 2008–09 

Expenditure type and school grade level 

0 percent or 

more below 

4 percent or 

more below 

More than 10 

percent below 

All school-level personnel 

Elementary schools 47 34 20 

Middle schools 46 36 23 

High schools 39 29 21 

All schools 67 57 43 

Instructional staff 

Elementary schools 49 36 20 

Middle schools 50 38 25 

High schools 44 33 25 

All schools 61 52 38 

Teachers 

Elementary schools 51 36 21 

Middle schools 52 40 25 

High schools 42 34 25 

All schools 64 55 41 

Non-personnel expenditures 

Elementary schools 49 42 32 

Middle schools 54 49 39 

High schools 40 37 29 

All schools 80 78 72 

Personnel and non-personnel expenditures 

Elementary schools 47 34 20 

Middle schools 47 37 23 

High schools 38 30 21 

All schools 70 61 47 

Appendix C 61 
Appendix C 62 

Exhibit C-28. Percentage of Title I districts in which higher-poverty schools had lower per-pupil 

expenditures than lower-poverty schools, on average, by type of expenditure and 

school grade level, 2008–09 

Expenditure type and school grade level 

0 percent or 

more below 

4 percent or 

more below 

More than 10 

percent below 

All school-level personnel 

Elementary schools 43 31 17 

Middle schools 42 32 19 

High schools 34 25 16 

All schools 57 48 35 

Instructional staff 

Elementary schools 45 33 18 

Middle schools 45 34 21 

High schools 38 29 18 

All schools 54 45 32 

Teachers 

Elementary schools 47 33 19 

Middle schools 46 35 21 

High schools 38 29 18 

All schools 56 45 32 

Non-personnel expenditures 

Elementary schools 47 40 31 

Middle schools 48 43 33 

High schools 43 39 33 

All schools 73 69 63 

Personnel and non-personnel expenditures 

Elementary schools 43 30 17 

Middle schools 43 32 20 

High schools 34 25 16 

All schools 60 51 38 
This page intentionally left blank 
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov