	Background

The Congress, among others, has been concerned about the academic achievement gap between economically disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers. The disparity between poor students’ performance on standardized tests and the performance of their nonpoor peers is well documented, and there is broad consensus that poverty itself adversely affects academic achievement. Furthermore, research has indicated the importance of socioeconomic status as a predictor of student achievement. Differences in school spending can affect characteristics that may be related to student achievement. Inner city schools in Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis generally spent more per pupil than neighboring suburban schools, whereas selected suburban schools in Fort Worth and New York almost always spent more per pupil than the inner city schools. Three factors generally explained spending differences between inner city and suburban schools: (1) average teacher salaries; (2) student- teacher ratios; and (3) ratios of students to student support staff, such as guidance counselors, librarians, and nurses. To compensate for additional challenges faced by schools in these areas, federal education dollars are generally targeted to low-income areas. Differences in Per-Pupil Spending between Selected Inner City Schools and Suburban Schools Varied by Metropolitan Area

Differences between inner city and suburban school per-pupil spending were related to the particular metropolitan area studied and generally seemed to be most influenced by teacher salaries. In Denver and Oakland, an examination of spending differences among the selected suburban and inner city schools revealed mixed results. Finally, the type of in-school parental involvement in the inner city and suburban schools differed. Inner City Students’ Achievement Scores Were Generally Lower than Suburban Students’ Achievement Scores

In general, at the schools we visited in the metropolitan areas of Fort Worth, New York, Oakland, and St. Louis, inner city students’ average achievement scores on state reading assessment tests were lower than scores at the neighboring suburban schools. 6 for the percentage of first-year teachers by school and metropolitan area.) This study covered selected inner city and suburban schools in seven metropolitan areas. Methodology to Analyze Differences in Spending and Factors Accounting for Spending Differences

For each metropolitan area, per-pupil spending for each of the three inner city schools and three suburban schools were ordered and paired, that is, the lowest spending inner city school was paired with the lowest spending suburban school, the middle spending inner city school was paired with the middle spending suburban school, and the highest spending inner city school was paired with the highest spending suburban school.
Why GAO Did This Study

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has focused national attention on the importance of ensuring each child's access to equal educational opportunity. The law seeks to improve the performance of schools and the academic achievement of students, including those who are economically disadvantaged. The Congress, among others, has been concerned about the education of economically disadvantaged students. This study focused on per-pupil spending, factors influencing spending, and other similarities and differences between selected high-poverty inner city schools and selected suburban schools in seven metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Denver, Fort Worth, New York, Oakland, and St. Louis.

What GAO Found

Among the schools GAO reviewed, differences in per-pupil spending between inner city and suburban schools varied across metropolitan areas, with inner city schools spending more in some metropolitan areas and suburban schools spending more in other areas. The inner city schools that GAO examined generally spent more per pupil than suburban schools in Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, while in Fort Worth and New York the suburban schools in GAO's study almost always spent more per pupil than the inner city schools. In Denver and Oakland, spending differences between the selected inner city and suburban schools were mixed. In general, higher per-pupil expenditures at any given school were explained primarily by higher staff salaries regardless of whether the school was an inner city or suburban school. Two other explanatory factors were student-teacher ratios and ratios of students to student support staff, such as guidance counselors, nurses, and librarians. Federal funds are generally targeted to low-income areas to compensate for additional challenges faced by schools in those areas. In some cases, the infusion of federal funds balanced differences in per-pupil expenditures between the selected inner city and suburban schools. There is a broad consensus that poverty itself adversely affects academic achievement, and inner city students in the schools reviewed performed less well academically than students in the suburban schools. The disparity in achievement may also be related to several other differences identified in the characteristics of inner city and suburban schools. At the schools GAO visited, inner city schools generally had higher percentages of first-year teachers, higher enrollments, fewer library resources, and less in-school parental involvement--characteristics that some research has shown are related to school achievement.