In recent years rural advocates have claimed that rural students do not get their "fair share" of the federal education dollar and that federal programs are sometimes poorly tailored to rural conditions. These claims of an anti-rural bias have led to a study of fiscal year 1977 federal funding patterns in the six sample states of Vermont, North Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, and California. The study examines the distribution of federal funds between rural and non rural school districts for two parts of the amended Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Title IVB of the act deals with libraries and learning resources and Title IVC deals with education innovation and support. Analyses were carried out using several alternatives definitions of ruralness: the metropolitan/nonmetropolitan distinction and three finer-grained definitions. Preliminary findings indicate that Title IVB formulas are operating to provide rural districts in the sample states with at least a proportional share of federal funds and in most cases somewhat more. Even with a greater per capita share, however, a small rural district can buy fewer educational resources with its Title IVB grant than can a populous district with a lower per capita grant. Funding patterns of Title IVC, a competitive grant program differ across states; funding in Georgia, North Carolina, and Maryland seems to favor rural areas while funding in California, Kansas, and Vermont may discriminate against rural regions. The study offers several recommendations for reducing the possible competitive disadvantages of rural districts in grant programs. (Author/DS)