This article in the Washington Post tells of a study which concluded that funds for education aimed helping poor children are actually benefiting richer states:

A $13 billion federal program to help students from low-income families has actually widened an education funding gap between rich and poor states, according to a study released yesterday.

The program, known as Title I, is part of a slew of federal, state and local policies that direct more resources to the nation’s wealthiest children than to its poorest, the study concluded. It found that the highest-poverty school districts receive an average of $825 less each year per student in state and local funding than the wealthiest districts. It also found that state and local money often flows disproportionately to wealthy students within districts.

“The decisions that we make stack the deck against low-income kids and kids of color,” said Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, the District-based nonprofit group that issued the report. “These facts raise really disturbing questions about our values as a country.”

The report’s authors contended that Title I, which has become a key element of the No Child Left Behind law, has failed to narrow the yawning achievement gap between wealthy and disadvantaged students in part because its funding formula directs more money to states that already spend the most on education. That means the formula causes the rich states to get richer, leaving the poor ones further behind.

“Title I money is supposed to level the playing field for poor kids,” said Goodwin Liu, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and co-author of the study, but instead it “ends up reinforcing rather than reducing inequality.”

Experts say children raised in poverty need more instructional time and specially trained teachers to help overcome their disadvantages — resources that require more spending.

The report lays much of the blame for the funding gap on states. In 26 states, the highest-poverty districts receive less state and local funding than the wealthiest ones; in 28 states, the districts with the most minority students receive less money than those with the fewest.

The Washington region fell in the middle of the spectrum. Maryland spends $123 less per student in poor districts than in wealthy ones and $302 less per student in high-minority districts than in those with few minorities, the study found.

Virginia spends $114 less per student in low-income districts than affluent ones, the study found, but $418 more per student in high-minority areas than in those with few minorities. The District was not included in the analysis.

Liu said the Title I formula should be changed so that states with the greatest concentration of poor children receive a larger share of funding. He said it made little sense for Maryland to receive 51 percent more Title I money per child than Arkansas even though Maryland has a lower percentage of poor children.

Liu argued that funding for Title I should be increased to offset disparities among states. U.S. Education Department spokesman Chad Colby said Congress controls funding. He added: “When you look at the funds at the district level, they are relatively targeted, so the money is reaching poor students.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the incoming chairman of the Senate’s education committee, suggested that he would be open to reviewing funding policy.

“We cannot close the education achievement gap in this country without addressing the funding gap, which keeps our low-income and minority children at a disadvantage,” he said in a written statement. “States must take responsibility for ensuring access to resources for all our children, but the federal government has to do its part as well.”