Student Poverty Rates
This map compares states by student poverty rates; click on the map to view the data and rank for each state. For an in-depth analysis of this map and the data behind it, please see below.
|
|
|
- Student poverty varies by region. [1] Southern states have the largest percentage of poor children, with 18.2% of the student population living in poverty. The Northeast and the Midwest are much wealthier, with around 14% of students living in poverty, while the West ranks in the middle with a 16.3% student poverty rate. [2]
In addition, there is significant variation within the Census Bureau-designated "South" region that masks extreme student poverty in the Deep South. Of the 10 poorest states, six are located in the "South Central," or most southern, region. In the South Central states, 20.7% of students are living in poverty, in comparison to only 15.5% in the South Atlantic, or more northern, states.Alabama, a South Central state which ranks 47th in student poverty, has almost twice as many students living in poverty as similar-sized Minnesota, which ranks fourth. Alabama educates an additional 72,000 poor students each year—approximately 9% of the student population in each of these states.
Student poverty rates are distorted by the relative cost of living. The poverty line is set at the same income level nationwide; however, the cost of living varies widely across and within states. Often higher wages do not compensate for cost of living discrepancies. Thus it is likely that the incidence of student poverty in high-cost settings is much higher than the Census numbers suggest.
For example, California ranks 38th in student poverty, but has an extremely high cost of living. The percentage of California students living in poverty would jump if the poverty line took cost of living into account. Research by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that California’s statewide poverty rate rises from 13.3% to 16.1% after cost adjustments. The difference is even more substantial in Los Angeles, where the cost-adjusted poverty rate is 20%, versus only 16% with the nationwide poverty line. [3]
Student poverty is roughly correlated with student achievement. In general, states with wealthier students perform better on national achievement tests. There are certainly examples of states that buck this trend; for example, New York ranks 42nd in student poverty, yet performs relatively well on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), while Hawaii ranks third, but scores at the bottom on the NAEP. However, poverty remains a good predictor of student outcomes, particularly at the two ends of the wealth spectrum. In the five states with the lowest percentage of poor students, 36% of 8th graders are proficient in reading and 37% are proficient in math. Compare this to the five states with the highest percentage of poor students, where only 24% of 8th graders are proficient in reading and 25.5% are proficient in math.- Student poverty is also roughly correlated with statewide per-pupil expenditure. In general, the larger the percentage of poor students in the state, the less a state spends on education. While per-pupil expenditure is also related to fiscal effort, the amount of taxable wealth in a state (i.e. fiscal capacity) plays a substantial role in per pupil spending. More students in poverty indicates less aggregate family income available for tax contributions, which usually translates into a lower statewide per-pupil expenditure level. The five states with the lowest percentage of poor students spend an average of $9,972 per pupil, while the five states with the highest percentage of poor students spend less than half that amount—only $6,887 per pupil.
[1] The student poverty rate includes all children ages 5 to 17 living in poverty. The U.S. Census Bureau releases model-based poverty estimates each year for states, counties, and school districts. The data used here are from the 2004 Census poverty estimates. The poverty threshold varies by the size of the family and the number of related children under 18 years. In 2004, the poverty threshold for a four person family with two children was $19,157. For a three person family with two children, the threshold was $15,219, and for a five person family with two children, it was $22,543.
[2] Based on Census Bureau-designated regions. Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont. Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin. South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
[3] Deborah Reed, Poverty in California Moving Beyond the Federal Measure, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_506DRCC.pdf
Per-Pupil Expenditure. Statewide per-pupil expenditure equals the total amount of revenue paid out by school systems in the state divided by total school enrollment. It includes funds from federal, state, and local sources and funds spent on day to day operating expenses, such as teacher salaries, and capital expenses, such as school construction.
School Finance Inequity. School finance equity figures presented reflect a definition contained in Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act. That definition examines the differences in per-pupil spending among school districts across a given state. The per-pupil expenditure for every school district is compared to the average per-pupil expenditure for the state and weighted according to size and poverty level.
Indirect Aid. Indirect aid is support provided for school districts through the federal tax code. For example, a community can use local property taxes to finance local schools, and it costs taxpayers less because local property taxes are deductible on federal income tax returns.
Direct Aid. Direct aid is education funding that comes from the federal government and is distributed directly to states and then given to individual school districts. The two largest direct aid funding streams are the federal Title I program for disadvantaged students and the IDEA special education program for children with disabilities.
Title I. Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes direct aid from the federal government to states and school districts to support the additional education needs of children from low-income families.
IDEA. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes direct aid from the federal government to states and school districts to support the additional education needs of children with disabilities.
Student Poverty Rate. The student poverty rate reflects the number of children in a state ages 5 to 17 living beneath the Census Bureau's poverty line. In 2004, the poverty income threshold for a family of four was $19,157.
Achievement. State-defined proficiency standards of what students should know and be able to do in each grade are developed separately by each state. States use these standards to test and assess whether students are performing adequately, as required under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Nationally-defined proficiency standards of what students should know and be able to do are developed by the National Assessment Governing Board. The Board administers a national test to a representative sample of students-the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)-that measures whether students are performing at grade level.
Percentage figures presented reflect the proportion of students learning at grade level according to state NCLB and national NAEP standards, respectively.
Post new comment