Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />i <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br /> <br /> A similar legislative approach to a similar problem was <br />upheld against an equal protection challenge in Huntsville C%ty <br />Board of Education v. Brown, 379 F. Supp. 1092 (M.D. Ala. 1974). <br />That case involved the distribution of federal Title I funds to the <br />City of Huntsville, Alabama, for the 1973-74 school year. The <br />Title I funds were intended to provide financial assistance to <br />states and counties to establish programs for educationally deprived <br />children. The funds were allocated among the states by the United <br />States Office of Education in proportion to the number of <br />educationally deprived students in each state as reported in the <br />federal census. The Office of Education also allocated each state's <br />share of the funds to the counties within the state, also based on <br />the federal census figures. Allocation of funds to school districts <br />within each county was the responsibility of each state's department <br />of education. <br /> <br /> Allocation of Title I funds during the 1960's was based on <br />population figures found in the 1960 census. Offical population <br />data from the 1970 census was not available for calculation of <br />Title I fund apportionment until the 1973-74 school year. When <br />Congress finally enacted the Title I appropriation in December of <br />that school year, it contained maximum and minimum limitations <br />providing that no state could receive Title I funds in excess of <br />120 percent of the amount received the previous year and no state <br />could receive less Title I funds than it received the previous year. <br />In addition, the federal law required that no local educational <br /> <br />-26- <br /> <br /> <br />