State and Local Implementation of the 

No Child Left Behind Act:

Volume VI—Targeting and Uses of Federal Education Funds 

A report from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of State 

Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB) 

Jay G. Chambers 

Irene Lam 

Kanya Mahitivanichcha 

Phil Esra 

Larisa Shambaugh 

American Institutes for Research (AIR) 

Stephanie Stullich 

U.S. Department of Education 

---------------- 

Series Principal Investigators 

Georges Vernez, RAND 

Beatrice F. Birman, AIR 

Michael S. Garet, AIR 

Jennifer O’Day, AIR 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2009 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-00-CO-0120 with AIR. 

Stephanie Stullich served as the contracting officer’s representative for the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left 

Behind. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of 

Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

January 2009 

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with permission and 

copyright, 2007, Getty Images. Authorization to reproduce the report in whole or in part is granted. While permission 

to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local Implementation of the No Child 

Left Behind Act, Volume VI—Targeting and Uses of Federal Education Funds, Washington, D.C., 2009. 

Copies of this report may be ordered in the following way: 

• Mail. Write to: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U. S. Department of Education 

P. O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

• Fax. Dial 301-470-1244. 

• Telephone (toll-free). Dial 877-433-7827 (877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, 

call 800-872-5327 (800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a 

teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833. 

• Electronic mail. Send your request to edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

• Online. Order a copy of the report at: www.edpubs.org. This report may also be downloaded from the 

Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 

• Alternate formats. Upon request, this publication is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, 

or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-

260-9895 or 202-205-8113. 
Contents iii 

CONTENTS 

List of Exhibits .......................................................................................................................... v

Preface ................................................................................................................................... xiii

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... xv

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... xvii

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of the Federal Programs in This Report ...................................................................................... 1

Targeting and Resource Allocation Provisions for Federal Programs ....................................................... 4

Evaluation Questions and Data Sources for This Report ......................................................................... 10

Technical Notes ............................................................................................................................................... 11

II. Targeting of Federal Education Funds .............................................................................. 13

Targeting of Federal, State, and Local Revenues to School Districts ...................................................... 14

Targeting of Federal Program Funds to Districts and Schools ................................................................ 17

Targeting of Federal Program Funds by District Poverty Quartile .......................................................... 20

Targeting of Federal Program Funds by School Poverty Level ................................................................ 23

Changes in Title I Targeting to Districts and Schools, Between 1997–98 and 2004–05 ...................... 30

Allocation of Federal Funds to Districts and Schools by Urbanicity ....................................................... 42

Allocation of Federal Program Funds by Grade Level .............................................................................. 48

Allocation of Title I Funds by School Improvement Status ..................................................................... 52

Allocation of Title I Funds to Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs ..................................... 54

Discussion..... ................................................................................................................................................. 57

III. Uses of Federal Education Funds .................................................................................... 59

Allocation of Federal Program Funds Among the State, District, and School Levels .......................... 60

District and School Uses of Federal Program Funds ................................................................................. 63

Variation in Uses of Title I Funds for Personnel Resources ..................................................................... 72

Consolidation of Funds in Schoolwide Programs ...................................................................................... 76

Discussion...... ................................................................................................................................................ 78
Contents iv 

IV. What Title I Adds to State and Local Resources at the School Level ............................... 81

A Comparison of Base State and Local Personnel Expenditures in Schools Classified by 

Title I Status and Poverty ....................................................................................................................... 82

What Title I Adds to School Personnel Resources ..................................................................................... 88

Discussion..... ................................................................................................................................................. 94

V. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 95

References ................................................................................................................................ 99

Appendix A. Description of NLS-NCLB Methodology ........................................................ 101

Sample and Response Rates ......................................................................................................................... 101

Data Collection............................................................................................................................................... 105

Sample Weights for NLS-NCLB Study Data ............................................................................................ 107

Standard Errors .............................................................................................................................................. 110

Statistical Tests and Modeling ...................................................................................................................... 110

Appendix B. Supplemental Exhibits ...................................................................................... 111

Appendix C. Standard Error Tables ...................................................................................... 133

Appendix D. Distribution of Title I Schools in NLS and CCD datasets .............................. 169
Exhibits v 

EXHIBITS 

Executive Summary 

Exhibit S.1 Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, by District Poverty Quartile, 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................. xxi

Exhibit S.2 Distribution of Federal Program Funds, by District Poverty Quartile, 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................ xxii

Exhibit S.3 Title I Funding per Low-income Student, by School Poverty Level, 1997–98 

and 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars ................................................................... xxv

Exhibit S.4 Uses of Federal Program Funds: Share of Expenditures Used for Instruction, 

Instructional and Student Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 .......... xxviii

I. Introduction

Exhibit 1 Percentage of Federal and Total Elementary-Secondary Revenues Provided 

Through the Six Federal Programs in This Study, 2004–05 ............................................ 2

Exhibit 2 Statutory Provisions Governing the Allocation of Funds to States and Within 

States in FY 2004 .................................................................................................................... 7

II. Targeting of Federal Education Funds

Exhibit 3 Share of Federal, State, and Local Revenues Received by Districts in the 

Highest and Lowest Poverty Quartiles, 2004–05 ............................................................. 14

Exhibit 4 Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, by District Poverty Quartile, 

2004–05 .................................................................................................................................. 15

Exhibit 5 Share of District Revenues Provided Through Title I and Through All Federal 

Funds, by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 .................................................................. 16

Exhibit 6 Percentage of Districts That Received Federal Program Funds and percentage 

of Students Enrolled in these Districts, 2004–05 ............................................................ 18

Exhibit 7 Percentage of Districts Receiving Federal Program Funds, in the Highest and 

Lowest District Poverty Quartiles, 2004–05 ..................................................................... 19

Exhibit 8 Distribution of Federal Program Funds, by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 ....... 20

Exhibit 9 Federal Program Funding per Poor Child, for Districts in the Highest and 

Lowest Poverty Quartiles, 2004–05 ................................................................................... 22

Exhibit 10 School-Level Funding for Title I, Reading First, and CSR, 2004–05 ........................... 24

Exhibit 11 Distribution of School-Level Funds for Title I, Reading First, and CSR, 

by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 ..................................................................................... 25

Exhibit 12 Average School Allocations per Low-income Student for Schools Receiving 

Title I, Reading First, and CSR funds, by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 .................. 26

Exhibit 13 Allocations for Title I Schools, by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 ........................ 28
Exhibits vi 

Exhibit 14 Within-District Targeting for Title I, Reading First, and CSR, 2004–05 ..................... 30

Exhibit 15 Distribution of Title I Funds by District Poverty, Compared With the 

Distribution of Poor Children, 1997–98 and 2004–05 ................................................... 31

Exhibit 16 Share of Title I Funds Allocated to Highest- and Lowest-Poverty Districts 

Under Each Title I Formula in FY 2007 ........................................................................... 32

Exhibit 17 Allocation per Low-income Student Under Each Title I Formula in Selected 

School Districts, Based on Simulations Using the Same Funding Level for 

Each Formula ($1.97 Billion) and No Hold Harmless Provisions ................................ 34

Exhibit 18 Title I Funding per Poor Child, by District Poverty Quartile, 1997–98 and 

2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars ............................................................................. 35

Exhibit 19 Percentage Increase in Title I Funds and in Numbers of Poor Children, 

by District Poverty Quartile, 1997–98 to 2004–05 .......................................................... 36

Exhibit 20 Percentage of Schools Receiving Title I Funds, 2000–01 to 2004–05 ......................... 37

Exhibit 21 Percentage of Highest-Poverty and Lowest-Poverty Schools Receiving 

Title I Funds, 2000–01 to 2004–05 .................................................................................... 38

Exhibit 22 Title I Funding per Low-income Student, by School Poverty Level, 1997–98 

and 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars ..................................................................... 39

Exhibit 23 Change in Title I Total School Allocations and Number of Low-income 

Students, by School Poverty Level, 1997–98 to 2004–05 ............................................... 40

Exhibit 24 Percentage of Districts Receiving Federal Funds, by District 

Urbanicity, 2004–05 ............................................................................................................. 42

Exhibit 25 Distribution of Federal Program Funds, by District Urbanicity, 2004–05 .................. 43

Exhibit 26 Average District Allocation per Poor Child, by District Urbanicity, 2004–05 ............ 44

Exhibit 27 Allocations for Urban, Suburban, and Rural Districts Under Discretionary 

Grant Programs, 2004–05 ................................................................................................... 45

Exhibit 28 Distribution of School-Level Funds for Title I, Reading First, and CSR, 

by School Urbanicity, 2004–05 ........................................................................................... 46

Exhibit 29 Average School Allocation per Low-income Student for Title I, Reading First, 

and CSR, by Urbanicity, 2004–05 ...................................................................................... 47

Exhibit 30 Distribution of Federal Program Funds, Across Title I, Reading First, and CSR, 

by School Grade Level, 2004–05 ....................................................................................... 48

Exhibit 31 Average School Allocation per Low-income Student Under Title I, Reading First, 

and CSR, by School Grade Level, 2004–05 ...................................................................... 49

Exhibit 32 Percentage of Schools Receiving Title I Funds, by Grade Level, From 2000–01 

to 2004–05 ............................................................................................................................. 50

Exhibit 33 Change in Title I Average School Allocation per Low-income Student in 

Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1997–98 to 2004–05, in Constant 

2004–05 Dollars .................................................................................................................... 51
Exhibits vii 

Exhibit 34 Distribution of Title I Funds and Schools by School Improvement 

Status, 2004–05 ..................................................................................................................... 52

Exhibit 35 Title I Funds per Low-income Student, by School Improvement Status and 

Grade Level, 2004–05 .......................................................................................................... 53

Exhibit 36 Distribution of Schools, Students, and Low-income Students in the Nation, 

by Type of Title I Program, 2004–05 ................................................................................ 54

Exhibit 37 Number of Title I Schoolwide Programs and Targeted Assistance Programs, 

1994–95 to 2004–05 ............................................................................................................. 55

Exhibit 38 Distribution of Title I Funds, by Program Type, 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

in Constant 2004–05 Dollars .............................................................................................. 56

Exhibit 39 Average Title I Funding by Type of Title I Program, 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

in Constant 2004–05 Dollars .............................................................................................. 57

III. Uses of Federal Education Funds

Exhibit 40 Distribution of Federal Program Funds, by Agency Type, 2004–05 ............................ 60

Exhibit 41 State Uses of Title I Section 1003 Funds, 2004–05 ......................................................... 61

Exhibit 42 District Allocation of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Funds Between the 

District and School Levels, 2004–05 ................................................................................. 62

Exhibit 43 District and School Uses of Federal Program Funds: Share of Expenditures 

Used for Instruction, Instructional and Student Support, and Program 

Administration, 2004–05 ..................................................................................................... 64

Exhibit 44 Uses of Federal Funds: Expenditures for Instruction, Instructional and 

Student Support, and Administration and Other Support, 2004–05 

($ in Millions) ........................................................................................................................ 66

Exhibit 45 Financial Contribution of Six Federal Programs to Funding for Professional 

Development, 2004–05 ........................................................................................................ 68

Exhibit 46 Uses of Federal Program Funds for Professional Development .................................. 69

Exhibit 47 Percentage of Title II Funds Used for Various Program Activities as Reported 

by District Coordinators, 2004–05 ..................................................................................... 71

Exhibit 48 Share of Title II Funds Used for Professional Development, 

by Topic, 2004–05 ................................................................................................................ 72

Exhibit 49 Uses of Title I, Part A, Funds for Personnel Expenditures at the School Level, 

by School Grade Level, 2004–05 ....................................................................................... 73

Exhibit 50 Uses of Title I Funds for Personnel Expenditures at the School Level, 

by Poverty Level and Type of Title I School, 2004–05 .................................................. 74

Exhibit 51 Composition of FTE Title I Staff in the Nation, 1997–98 and 2004–05 ..................... 75

Exhibit 52 Consolidation of Program Funding in Districts With Schoolwide 

Programs, 2004–05 ............................................................................................................... 77

Exhibit 53 Barriers to Consolidation of Funding in Title I Schoolwide Programs, 2004–05 ....... 78
Exhibits viii 

IV. What Title I Adds to State and Local Resources at the School Level

Exhibit 54 Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel 

Expenditures per Student in Title I and Non–Title I Schools, 2004–05 ..................... 83

Exhibit 55 Comparison of State and Local Resources: Number of FTE Staff per School 

of 500 Students in Title I and Non–Title I Schools, by Grade Level, 2004–05 .......... 84

Exhibit 56 Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel 

Expenditures per Student in Highest- and Lowest-Poverty Schools, 2004–05 .......... 85

Exhibit 57 Comparison of State and Local Resources: Number of FTE Staff per School 

of 500 Students in High- and Low-Poverty Schools, by Grade Level, 2004–05 ........ 86

Exhibit 58 Comparison of State and Local Resources: Instructional Staff in the 

Highest-Poverty and Lowest-Poverty Schools, 2004–05 ................................................ 87

Exhibit 59 Amount That Title I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditures, 

by Type of Title I School, 2004–05 ................................................................................... 89

Exhibit 60 Number of FTE Staff per School of 500 Students in Title I Schools, Before 

and After the Addition of Title I Funds, 2004–05 .......................................................... 90

Exhibit 61 Number of FTE Staff Added Through Title I Funds, per School of 500 

Students, by School Grade Level, 2004–05 ...................................................................... 92

Exhibit 62 Distribution of FTE Staff Added Through Title I Funds, by Type of 

Title I School, 2004–05 ........................................................................................................ 93

Appendix A. Description of NLS-NCLB Methodology

Exhibit A.1 Characteristics of NLS-NCLB District and School Sample Compared With the 

Universe of Districts and Schools .................................................................................... 102

Exhibit A.2 Sample Sizes and Response Rates for NLS-NCLB ....................................................... 103

Exhibit A.3 Number of Responding Districts That Received Program Funds and 

Provided Fiscal Data .......................................................................................................... 104

Exhibit A.4 Characteristics of Sample Schools for Which Districts Provided 

Personnel and Payroll Data ............................................................................................... 104

Appendix B. Supplemental Exhibits

Exhibit B.1 Total Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, by District Poverty 

Quartile, by State, 2004–05 ............................................................................................... 111

Exhibit B.2 Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, by State, 2004–05 ........................... 113

Exhibit B.3 Distribution of Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, by Revenue 

Source and District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 ............................................................. 115

Exhibit B.4 District Revenues per Student, by Revenue Source and District Poverty 

Quartile, 2004–05 ............................................................................................................... 116

Exhibit B.5 Average Amount of Federal Funds per Poor Child by District Poverty 

Quartile, 2004–05 ............................................................................................................... 117
Exhibits ix 

Exhibit B.6 Alternate Calculations of Per-Pupil Funding for Selected Federal Programs 

by District Poverty Level and Urbanicity, 2004–05 ....................................................... 118

Exhibit B.7 Percentage of Districts Receiving Federal Program Funds, by Poverty 

Quartile and Urbanicity, 2004–05 .................................................................................... 119

Exhibit B.8 Distribution of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Schools, by School Poverty 

Level, 2004–05 .................................................................................................................... 120

Exhibit B.9 Within-District Targeting for Title I Part A, Reading First, and CSR ........................ 121

Exhibit B.10 Title I Allocations After Application of Various Steps in the Title I Formula 

Process, by State, FY 2007 ................................................................................................ 122

Exhibit B.11 Title I Allocations per Formula Child After Application of Various Steps 

in the Title I Formula Process, by State, FY 2007 ......................................................... 124

Exhibit B.12 Distribution of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Schools, by School 

Urbanicity, 2004–05 ........................................................................................................... 126

Exhibit B.13 Distribution of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Schools, by School Grade 

Level, 2004–05 .................................................................................................................... 127

Exhibit B.14 Distribution of Federal Program Funds, by School Grade Level 

($ in Millions), 2004–05 ..................................................................................................... 127

Exhibit B.15 Average Title I School Allocations per Low-income Student 

by School Poverty Level, 1997–98 and 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars ...... 128

Exhibit B.16 Title I Total District Allocations, Number of Poor Children, and Average 

Title I Allocation per Poor Child, by District Poverty Quartile, 1997–98 

and 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars ................................................................... 129

Exhibit B.17 Title I Total School Allocations, Number of Low-income Students, 

and Average Title I Allocation per Low-income Student, by School Poverty 

Level, 1997–98 and 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars ........................................ 130

Exhibit B.18 Use of Total Current Educational Expenditures for Instruction, Instructional 

and Student Support, and Administration and Other Support, 2004–05 .................. 131

Exhibit B.19 Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel 

Expenditures per Student in High- and Low-Poverty Title I Schools, 2004–05 ...... 132

Appendix C. Standard Error Tables

Exhibit C.1 Percentage of Schools That Received Title I Funds, 2004–05 .................................... 133

Exhibit C.2 Percentage of Schools That Received CSR Funds, 2004–05 ....................................... 134

Exhibit C.3 Percentage of Schools That Received Reading First Funds, 2004–05 ........................ 134

Exhibit C.4 Poverty Measures That Districts Used to Determine Title I School 

Allocations, 2004–05 .......................................................................................................... 135

Exhibit C.5 Methods that Districts Used in Making Title I School Allocations, 2004–05 ........... 135

Exhibit C.6 Average Title I School Allocation per Low-income Student, by School 

Poverty Level, 1997–98 ..................................................................................................... 136
Exhibits x 

Exhibit C.7 Distribution of Schools Receiving Title I Funds, by School Type, 2004–05 ............ 137

Exhibit C.8 Distribution of Students, Low-income Students, and Title I Funds 

Among Schools, 2004–05 .................................................................................................. 138

Exhibit C.9 Average Title I School Allocations per Low-income Student, by School 

Type, 2004–05 ..................................................................................................................... 139

Exhibit C.10 Average Title I School Allocations per Low-income Student by School 

Poverty Level and District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 ................................................. 140

Exhibit C.11 Average Poverty Rate of Title I Schools, by School Poverty Level and 

District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 .................................................................................. 140

Exhibit C.12 Average Poverty Rate of Title I Schools, by Type of School, 2004–05 ..................... 141

Exhibit C.13 Percentage of Schools Receiving Title I Funds, by School Poverty Level 

and District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 ........................................................................... 142

Exhibit C.14 Distribution of Schools Receiving Reading First Funds, 2004–05 ............................. 142

Exhibit C.15 Reading First Allocations per Low-income Student, by School Poverty Level 

and Urbanicity, 2004–05 .................................................................................................... 143

Exhibit C.16 Distribution of CSR Schools and Funds, by School Grade Level, 

Poverty Level, and Urbanicity, 2004–05 ......................................................................... 143

Exhibit C.17 CSR Allocations per Low-income Student, by School Poverty Level 

and Grade Level, 2004–05 ................................................................................................ 144

Exhibit C.18 District Allocations of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Funds to Public 

Schools, 2004–05 ................................................................................................................ 144

Exhibit C.19 Percentage of Title I Schoolwide-Eligible Schools That Operated Schoolwide 

Programs, by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 ................................................................ 144

Exhibit C.20 Use of Title I, Part A, Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student 

Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 ........................................................... 145

Exhibit C.21 Use of Title I, Section 1003, Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student 

Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 ........................................................... 146

Exhibit C.22 Use of Title II, Part A, Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student 

Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 ........................................................... 147

Exhibit C.23 Use of Title III, Part A, Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student 

Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 ........................................................... 148

Exhibit C.24 Use of Perkins Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student Support, 

and Program Administration, 2004–05 ........................................................................... 149

Exhibit C.25 Use of Reading First Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student 

Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 ........................................................... 150

Exhibit C.26 Use of CSR Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student Support, 

and Program Administration, 2004–05 ........................................................................... 151

Exhibit C.27 Uses of Federal Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student Support, 

and Administration, by District Poverty Level and Urbanicity, 2004–05 .................. 152
Exhibits xi 

Exhibit C.28 District Expenditures for Title I School Choice-Related Transportation 

and Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 and 2005–06 ................................. 154

Exhibit C.29 Percentage of Districts That Used Federal Program Funds for Professional 

Development, 2004–05 ...................................................................................................... 154

Exhibit C.30 Financial Contributions of Six Federal Programs to Professional 

Development, 2004–05 ...................................................................................................... 155

Exhibit C.31 Share of Title II Funds Designated for Professional Development, 

by Content Area, 2004–05 ................................................................................................. 155

Exhibit C.32 Percentage of Districts That Used Title II Funds for Recruitment, 

Professional Development, and Other Activities, 2004–05 ......................................... 156

Exhibit C.33 Total Spending on Title II Funds for Recruitment, Professional 

Development, and Other Activities, 2004–05 ................................................................ 156

Exhibit C.34 Composition of FTE Title I Staff in the Nation, 1997–98 and 2004–05 ................... 157

Exhibit C.35 Consolidation of Program Funding in Districts With Schoolwide 

Programs, 2004–05 ............................................................................................................. 157

Exhibit C.36 Barriers to Consolidation of Funding in Title I Schoolwide Programs, 2004–05 ..... 158

Exhibit C.37 Uses of Title I Funds for Personnel Expenditures at the School Level, 

by School Grade Level, Title I Status, and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 .............. 159

Exhibit C.38 Amount That Title I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditure 

in Title I Schools, by Title I Status and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 ................... 160

Exhibit C.39 Amount That Title I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditures 

in Title I Schools, by School Grade Level, 2004–05 ..................................................... 160

Exhibit C.40 Amount That Title I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditures 

in Title I Schools, by School Grade Level and Title I Status, 2004–05 ...................... 161

Exhibit C.41 Amount That Tile I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditures 

in the Highest- and Lowest-Poverty Elementary Title I Schools, 2004–05 ............... 161

Exhibit C.42 Number of FTE Staff per School of 500 Students in Title I Schools, Before 

and After the Addition of Title I Funds, by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 ........... 162

Exhibit C.43 Distribution of FTE Staff Added Through Title I Funds, by Type of School, 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................ 163

Exhibit C.44 Number of FTE Staff per School of 500 Students in Title I Schools, Before 

and After the Addition of Title I Funds, by School Grade Level and 

Title I Status, 2004–05 ....................................................................................................... 164

Exhibit C.45 Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel 

Expenditures per Student, by Title I Status and School Poverty 

Level, 2004–05 .................................................................................................................... 165

Exhibit C.46 Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel 

Expenditures per Student, by School Grade Level, Title I Status, 

and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 ................................................................................. 166
Exhibits xii 

Exhibit C.47 Comparison of State and Local Resources: Number of FTE Staff per 

School of 500 Students, by School Grade Level, Title I Status, 

and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 ................................................................................. 167

Exhibit C.48 Comparison of Non–Title I Resources: Instructional Expenditures, 

Student-Teacher Ratio, and Average Teacher Salary in Highest- and 

Lowest-Poverty Schools, 2004–05 ................................................................................... 168

Exhibit C.49 Comparison of Non–Title I Resources: Teacher Characteristics in 

Highest- and Lowest-Poverty Schools, 2004–05 ........................................................... 168

Exhibit C.50 Comparison of Non–Title I Resources: Secondary Teachers and Degree 

in the Field They Teach, 2004–05 .................................................................................... 168

Appendix D. Distribution of Title I Schools in NLS and CCD Datasets

Exhibit D.1 Distribution of Title I Schools Included in the NLS Study Sample 

for 2004–05, by School Poverty Level and by Their Title I Status as Reported 

in the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) for 2003–04 .......................................... 169

Exhibit D.2 Distribution of Title I Schools Included in the NLS Study Sample 

for 2004–05, by School Poverty Level as Reported in the NCES Common 

Core of Data (CCD) for 2003–04 .................................................................................... 170
Preface xiii 

PREFACE 

This report presents findings about targeting and resource allocation from the National Longitudinal 

Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB). The NLS-NCLB is being conducted with a companion 

study, the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left 

Behind (SSI-NCLB). The research teams for these two studies have collaborated to provide an integrated 

evaluation of the implementation of key NCLB provisions at the state level (SSI-NCLB) and at the 

district and school levels (NLS-NCLB). Together the two studies are the basis for a series of reports on 

the topics of accountability, teacher quality, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, 

and targeting and resource allocation. 

This is the sixth volume in this report series. The first five volumes were: 

Volume I—Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement 

Volume II—Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Interim Report 

Volume III—Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report 

Volume IV—Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services: Interim Report 

Volume V—Including Students With Disabilities in Adequate Yearly Progress: Implementation of the 

1 percent Rule and 2 percent Interim Policy Options 

Acknowledgments xv 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Many individuals contributed to the completion of this report. We are particularly grateful to the state 

and school district staff, including federal program directors, fiscal directors, principals, and teachers 

who took time out of their busy schedules to respond to our surveys and requests for information. 

Without their efforts, this report would not have been possible, and we deeply appreciate their 

assistance. 

The information in this report was provided through the congressionally mandated National 

Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB), led by Georges Vernez of the RAND 

Corporation and Michael Garet and Beatrice Birman of the American Institutes for Research (AIR), 

assisted by Brian Stecher (accountability team leader), Brian Gill (choice team leader), Meredith Ludwig 

(teacher quality team leader), and Jay Chambers (targeting and resource allocation team leader). Marie 

Halverson of the National Opinion Research Center directed data collections for the NLS-NCLB. 

We would like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of the members of our Technical Working 

Group, including Julian Betts, David Francis, Margaret Goertz, Brian Gong, Eric Hanushek, Richard 

Ingersoll, Phyllis McClure, Paul Peterson, Christine Steele, and Phoebe Winter. We are also indebted to 

Margaret Goertz, who read and provided invaluable input on the report. Other researchers who 

provided useful assistance for this report include Nina de las Alas of CCSSO and Scott Naftel of RAND. 

Many Department staff reviewed the study design and report and provided useful comments and 

suggestions. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of David Goodwin, director of program and 

analytic studies in PPSS, and Daphne Kaplan, PPSS team leader, as well as Andrew Abrams, Millicent 

Bentley-Memon, Paul Brown, James Butler, William Cordes, Thomas Corwin, Tim D’Emilio, Chris 

Doherty, Elizabeth Eisner, Michael Fong, William Fowler, Beth Franklin, Sandi Jacobs, Stacy Kreppel, 

Jay Noell, Kay Rigling, Patrick Smith, Todd Stephenson, Zollie Stevenson, Mark Traversa, Susan 

Wilhelm, Christine Wolfe, Ze’ev Wurman, and Fengju Zhang. 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the team of data collectors at AIR who helped gain the 

cooperation of the district and state administrators, and who served as our principal liaisons between 

AIR and the various administrative staff who provided the documents and files used for this project. The 

data collection team included the following individuals: Kristi Andes, Jennifer Brown, Lee Carlson, 

Juliette DeSousa, Chris Doyle, Lindsey Ganson, Steve Hulbert, Stephanie Ludvik, Kiazi Malonga, Julia 

Robinson, Daniela Rojas, Larisa Shambaugh, Nancy Spangler, Jessica Thomas, Sirinya Tritipeskul, Ian 

Vossbrinck, Katie Wells, Jean Wolman, and Michael Wolman. In particular, we would like to 

acknowledge the contributions of Steve Honegger and Jean Wolman for managing and supporting our 

data collection efforts. 

We also wish to express our appreciation to the data analysis team at AIR who provided support in 

database development, creation of tables, development of graphic displays, and related statistical 

analysis. This team included the following individuals: Gur Hoshen, Sami Kitmitto, Karen Manship, 

Bob Morris, Larisa Shambaugh, Paul William, and Ann Win. Finally, we thank Beatrice Birman, who 

provided valuable ideas and suggestions to improve the quality of the report. 

While we appreciate the assistance and support of all of the above individuals, any errors in judgment or 

fact are, of course, the responsibility of the authors. 

Executive Summary xvii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Achieving the goals of federal education legislation depends critically on how federal funds are distributed 

and used. Since the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, various 

federal programs have been created to support educational improvement and target additional resources 

to meet the educational needs of children who are economically and educationally disadvantaged. This 

report presents findings on the targeting and uses of funds for six federal education programs, based on 

2004–05 data from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB).1 The programs 

studied are: Title I, Part A; Reading First; Comprehensive School Reform (CSR); Title II, Part A; Title III, 

Part A; and Perkins Vocational Education State Grants.2 This report describes how well federal funds are 

targeted to high-need districts and schools, how districts have spent federal funds, and the comparability 

of the base of state and local resources to which federal funds are added. 

KEY FINDINGS

• Federal education funds were more strongly targeted to the highest-poverty districts 

than were state and local funds but did not close the funding gap between high- and 

low-poverty districts. Districts in the highest-poverty quartile, which serve 25 percent of the 

nation’s school-age children and about half (49 percent) of the nation’s poor school-age children, 

received 38 percent of all federal funds and 21 percent of state and local funds. For the six 

federal programs included in this study, the highest-poverty districts received between 43 and 

73 percent of the funds. However, total revenue per student from all sources in the highestpoverty districts ($10,025) was 7 percent lower than for districts in the lowest-poverty quartile 

($10,836). 

• The overall share of Title I funds going to the highest-poverty districts changed only 

marginally between 1997–98 and 2004–05 (from 50 to 52 percent). The highest-poverty 

districts received a substantial increase in their average Title I allocation per poor child, after 

adjusting for inflation (from $1,044 to $1,579, or 51 percent), but this largely reflects the overall 

growth in Title I appropriations during this period (a 51 percent increase in constant dollars). 

• At the school level, Title I funding per low-income student in the highest-poverty 

schools remained virtually unchanged from 1997–98 to 2004–05, when adjusted for 

inflation, and these schools continued to receive smaller Title I allocations per 

low-income student than did the lowest-poverty schools. While the amount of Title I funds 

received by the highest-poverty schools increased, the growth in Title I funds basically kept pace 

with the growth in the number of low-income students served in these schools. In addition, 

there was an increase in the share of Title I funds retained for district-managed services (from 

 

1 The NLS-NCLB is being conducted in collaboration with a companion study, the Study of State Implementation of 

Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB), in order to provide an integrated evaluation 

of the implementation of key NCLB provisions by states, districts, and schools. This report is part of a series of joint 

reports being issued by the two studies; these reports focus on four topics: accountability; teacher quality; Title I school 

choice and supplemental educational services; and targeting and resource allocation. 2 The first five of these programs are part of ESEA; the sixth (Perkins) was authorized under a separate law focused on 

career and technical education at the secondary and postsecondary levels. The program was reauthorized in 2006 as the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. 
Executive Summary xviii 

9 percent in 1997–98 to 21 percent in 2004–05) and a decline in the share allocated to individual 

schools (from 83 percent to 74 percent).

• Federal program funds were used mainly for instruction. For five of the six programs, the 

share of funds that districts and schools used for instructional purposes (e.g., on teacher salaries, 

instructional materials) ranged from 65 to 75 percent; CSR was somewhat lower (54 percent). 

Most of the remaining funds were used for instructional and student support (e.g., professional 

development, parent involvement), ranging from 18 percent (Title I) to 42 percent (Section 

1003), while between 4 and 10 percent of the funds for each program were used for 

administration and other support. 

• Among the six federal programs, Title I provided the most funds used for professional 

development ($1.0 billion, based on district fiscal records), followed by Title II ($518 million). 

However, these figures may underestimate spending on professional development because 

district accounting systems may not always clearly identify such expenditures. An alternate 

approach based on a survey of Title II district coordinators found that districts spent 

$959 million in Title II funds for professional development rather than the $518 million 

estimated from fiscal records. 

• Overall, school personnel expenditures from Title I amounted to $408 per low-income 

student, a 9 percent increase over the base of state and local per-student expenditures on 

school personnel. Title I added more dollars per low-income student to elementary schools 

than to middle or high schools. For elementary schools, Title I added a significantly higher 

amount of personnel resources per low-income student in the lowest-poverty schools than in the 

highest-poverty schools.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES

This report addresses three broad questions on how federal funds are targeted and used: 

• Where does the money go? How are federal funds distributed among districts and schools? 

How are these funds distributed in relation to poverty levels, school grade levels, urbanicity, and 

school improvement status? Have Title I funding patterns changed since the 2001 

reauthorization of ESEA? 

• What does the money buy? How do school districts use federal education funds for various 

purposes and strategies (e.g., administration, instruction, instructional support, professional 

development, supplemental educational services, school choice-related transportation) to 

improve student learning? What do federal programs add to the school’s total resources? 

• How do school districts and schools use flexibility options in the law to combine and use 

federal funds more flexibly? 

To address these questions, the NLS-NCLB collected data on federal program allocations from 

FY 2004 appropriations (which provided funds for use primarily during the 2004–05 school year) from 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The study also collected data from a nationally 

representative sample of 300 school districts on federal program allocations and expenditure data for the 

2004–05 school year. From district records, the study collected fiscal and payroll data for a sample of 

1,483 schools within the sampled districts. In order to examine changes since the 2001 reauthorization 

of ESEA, this report makes comparisons to data for the 1997–98 school year from the Study of 
Executive Summary xix 

Education Resources and Federal Funding (Chambers et al., 2000), and with data from the NCES 

Common Core of Data for 2000–01 through 2004–05. 

OVERVIEW OF THE SIX FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

In 2004–05, the six federal programs in this study provided $18.4 billion to support elementary and 

secondary education. This amount represented 50 percent of total funding appropriated for U.S. 

Department of Education elementary and secondary education programs and about 4 percent of total 

K–12 revenues from all sources (federal, state, and local combined). 

• Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies (Title I, Part A). As the largest federal education 

program, Title I, Part A, provided over $12.3 billion in the 2004–05 school year to states and 

districts to meet the educational needs of low-achieving students in high-poverty schools. 

Title I funds went to 93 percent of school districts and 56 percent of public schools in 2004–05. 

This study also includes analyses of Section 1003(a) funds, which come from a state-level setaside amounting to up to 4 percent of each state’s Title I funds. Section 1003(a) funds reached 

11 percent of the nation’s school districts enrolling 38 percent of the nation’s public school 

students. 

• Reading First (Title I, Part B, Subpart 1). The purpose of Reading First is to ensure that all 

children learn to read well by the end of third grade. Reading First provided over $1.0 billion in 

2004–05 in discretionary grants, reaching 8 percent of school districts and 4 percent of all 

elementary schools. 

• Comprehensive School Reform (Title I, Part F). This program provides start-up financial 

support to implement comprehensive school reforms using scientifically based research and 

effective practices. In 2004–05, CSR provided $234 million in discretionary grants that reached 

8 percent of all school districts and 1 percent of all schools.

• Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (Title II, Part A). Title II provides support 

for training and recruiting high-quality teachers and principals who are capable of enabling 

children to achieve high standards. Title II distributed more than $2.9 billion in 2004–05 and 

went to nearly all school districts (99 percent). 

• Title III: English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A). Title III provides 

assistance for improving the English proficiency and academic achievement of limited English 

proficient (LEP) students. Title III distributed $681 million in 2004–05 to 41 percent of the 

districts enrolling 87 percent of the nation’s LEP students.

• Perkins Vocational Education State Grants (Title I of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 

Technical Education Act). Originally authorized in 1984, this program supports secondary and 

postsecondary career and technical education. Perkins grants amounted to $1.195 billion in 

2004–05, and an estimated $741 million of that amount was allocated to school districts serving 

secondary students. Grantee districts accounted for 60 percent of all districts serving secondary 

students and 76 percent of all secondary students. 

Throughout this report, we refer to these six programs by names that are shorter than their full official 

names: Title I, Part A (or Title I), Reading First, CSR, Title II, Title III, and Perkins Title I (or Perkins). 

It should be noted that some of these Titles include other programs that are not covered by this study. 
Executive Summary xx 

For five of the six programs studied, the U.S. Department of Education allocates funds to states on the 

basis of statutory formulas; states then suballocate the funds to school districts and other subgrantees, 

either by formula or grant competitions, after reserving a small percentage of the funds for state-level 

activities and other set-asides. For Title I, Part A, the Department of Education allocates funds directly 

to the school district level using four statutory funding formulas, but states are permitted to adjust these 

allocations under certain circumstances and to reserve funds for Section 1003(a) school improvement 

activities and state administration. The Reading First and Comprehensive School Reform programs are 

discretionary grant programs, while Title I, Title II, Title III, and Perkins provide formula grants. 

TARGETING OF FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDS

Most federal programs target resources to school districts and schools based on some indicator of need, 

often poverty. Similarly, most states use funding formulas that incorporate poverty measures and other 

need indicators in the distribution of state aid to local school districts. 

Federal education funds were more targeted to high-poverty districts than were state 

or local funds.

In 2004–05, districts in the highest poverty quartile, which served 25 percent of all school-age children 

and 49 percent of the nation’s poor school-age children, received 38 percent of all federal funds, 

26 percent of state revenues, and 15 percent of local revenues. In contrast, districts in the lowest poverty 

quartile, which served 7 percent of the nation’s poor school-age children and 25 percent of all school-age 

children, received 12 percent of all federal funds, 22 percent of state funds, and 37 percent of local 

funds. 

Although federal programs, and to a lesser degree state school funding programs, 

provided more funds to the highest-poverty districts, these districts still had less 

overall funding per child than the lowest-poverty districts. 

While the highest-poverty districts received higher federal and state revenues per student, they received 

substantially lower revenues per student from local sources (see Exhibit S.1). The highest-poverty 

districts received over three times as much federal funding per student enrolled ($1,449 vs. $388) and 

38 percent more state funding per student ($5,478 vs. $3,973) than the lowest-poverty districts. 

However, local revenue per student for districts in the lowest poverty quartile ($6,475) was more than 

twice that of districts in the highest poverty quartile ($3,098). Overall, total revenue per student from all 

sources in the highest-poverty districts ($10,025) was 7 percent lower than for districts in the lowest 

poverty quartile ($10,836). 
Executive Summary xxi 

Exhibit S.1 

Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, 

by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Although federal revenues provided an additional $1,449 per student in 

the highest-poverty districts, compared with $388 per student in the lowest-poverty 

districts, the highest-poverty districts still received less in total revenues per student 

($10,025) than did the lowest-poverty districts ($10,836). 

Note: “Federal Revenues” include funds that school districts received from any federal source, 

including federal programs outside the U.S. Department of Education, such as the National School 

Lunch Program. 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, School District Finance 

Survey (F-33), 2004–05 (n=13,754 districts). 

TARGETING FOR THE SIX FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN THIS STUDY 

Of the federal programs studied, Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR provided the 

largest shares of program funds to the highest-poverty districts. 

In 2004–05, the districts in the highest poverty quartile received nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of the 

funds that states reserved for school improvement activities under Section 1003 of Title I (see 

Exhibit S.2). Reading First and CSR, both discretionary grant programs, also provided relatively large 

shares of their funding to the highest poverty quartile of districts (58 percent and 57 percent, 

respectively). 
Executive Summary xxii 

Exhibit S.2 

Distribution of Federal Program Funds, by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Districts in the highest poverty quartile received 52 percent of the Title I funds, 

while serving 49 percent of the nation’s poor children. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations, 2004–05 (n=13,815 districts including between 1,048 and 

13,653 districts that received various federal program funds). 

For Title I, the highest-poverty districts received 52 percent of the funds, slightly more than their share 

of poor children (49 percent). For Title II, Title III, and Perkins Vocational Education, the share of 

funds allocated to the highest poverty quartile (43 to 45 percent) was less than their share of poor 

children but greater than their share of all school-age children (25 percent). 

Conversely, districts in the lowest poverty quartile received a small share of the funds under Title I, 

Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR (3 to 6 percent) and a larger share of the funds under Title II, 

Title III, and Perkins (12 percent). 

While Title I allocations per poor child in the highest-poverty districts were 26 percent higher than in the 

lowest-poverty districts, allocations per poor child for the other federal programs were 44 to 74 percent 

lower for the highest-poverty districts. For example, the lowest-poverty districts received $571 per poor 

child in Title II funds, compared with $321 for the highest-poverty districts. While only a 

small percentage of the lowest-poverty districts received funds from discretionary grant programs like 

Reading First and CSR, the low proportion of poor children in these districts, especially in the lowestpoverty districts, resulted in a relatively higher average allocation per poor child. 

The following school-level analysis focuses on three of the six programs in this study—Title I, CSR, and 

Reading First—because school allocations data were frequently available for these three programs and 

were less readily available for the other three programs. 
Executive Summary xxiii 

It is important to note that when examining the targeting of federal program funds at the school level, average school 

allocations per low-income student appear much smaller than district allocations per poor student because a different poverty 

measure is used. The district-level analysis uses Census Bureau estimates of the number of poor school-age 

children, while the school-level analysis uses counts of students eligible for the free or reduced-price 

lunch program, which has a higher income threshold and thus includes roughly twice as many children. 

For Title I, for example, the average district allocation in 2004–05 was $1,499 per census poverty child 

but $796 per student eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 

At the school level, the highest-poverty schools (those with 75 percent or more 

low-income students) received 57 percent of Reading First funds, 50 percent of CSR 

funds, and 38 percent of Title I funds; their share of all low-income students was 

30 percent. 

Looking at a broader definition of “high-poverty schools”—those with 50 percent or more low-income 

students—shows similar patterns. These high-poverty schools received 96 percent of Reading First 

funds, 83 percent of CSR funds, and 76 percent of Title I funds, more than their share of all low-income 

students (63 percent). Although high-poverty schools received a majority of Title I funds, about 

6 percent of Title I funds were allocated to low-poverty schools. 

The highest-poverty schools received smaller allocations per low-income student 

than did lower-poverty schools for Title I, Reading First, and CSR. 

For example, the highest-poverty Title I schools received $558 per low-income student vs. $763 in 

low-poverty schools. Within-district analyses indicated that low-poverty districts concentrated their 

Title I funds on schools that had high poverty rates for their district but were low-poverty when 

compared with schools in other districts. Low-poverty schools accounted for a small percentage of all 

Title I schools (6 percent). However, medium-poverty Title I schools also received larger allocations 

than the highest-poverty schools. 
Executive Summary xxiv 

CHANGES IN THE TARGETING OF TITLE I FUNDS 

Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the share of Title I funds received by the highestpoverty districts has shown little change. 

The share of funds allocated to the highest-poverty districts increased by 2 percentage points, from 

50 percent in 1997–98 to 52 percent in 2004–05, while the share of funds allocated to the lowest-poverty 

districts declined from 8 to 6 percent. Beginning in FY 2002, Congress has designated an increasing 

share of total Title I funds to be allocated through the newer Targeted Grants and Incentive Grants 

formulas. However, most funds continue to flow through the Basic Grants, which are the least targeted 

to the highest-poverty districts. Less than half (47 percent) of the Basic Grants went to districts in the 

highest poverty quartile, while the Targeted, Incentive, and Concentration formulas allocated between 

56 and 58 percent of these grant funds to the highest-poverty districts. 

Title I funding per poor child increased substantially between 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

especially in the highest-poverty districts. 

Across all districts that received Title I funds, the average funding per poor child (adjusted for inflation) 

increased from $1,059 to $1,499 (a 42 percent increase) between 1997–98 and 2004–05. For the 

highest-poverty districts, Title I funds per poor child increased by 51 percent, from $1,044 to $1,579, 

compared with a 5 percent increase for the lowest-poverty districts, from $1,194 to $1,256. 

Title I funding per low-income student in the highest-poverty schools remained 

unchanged, after adjusting for inflation, from 1997–98 to 2004–05. 

The average allocation per low-income student in the highest-poverty schools was $558 in 2004–05 and 

$563 in 1997–98 (when the last study of this kind was conducted). In both cases, these per pupil 

allocations were significantly smaller than the allocations to the lowest-poverty schools, which were 

$763 and $914, respectively. While the per pupil allocations to the lowest-poverty schools declined 

between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the schools in the middle two poverty categories show a 29 to 

39 percent increase in Title I allocations per low-income student. 
Executive Summary xxv 

Exhibit S.3 

Title I Funding per Low-income Student, 

by School Poverty Level, 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

Exhibit reads: The highest-poverty schools received $558 per low-income student in 

2004–05, compared with $563 in 1997–98 (in constant 2004–05 dollars). 

* Indicates that the 2004–05 amount is significantly different from 1997–98 amount (p<.05). 

Source: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=4,563 Title I schools); 

NLS-NCLB, school allocations, 2004–05 (n=8,564 Title I schools). 

 

A within-district analysis of suballocations of Title I dollars to schools shows that 

the lowest-poverty districts concentrated their Title I funds on a relatively smaller 

proportion of schools, which were also generally low-poverty schools. 

This finding helps explain the higher average allocations per low-income student received by the lowestpoverty schools. The highest-poverty districts, on the other hand, spread their funds over a larger 

proportion of their schools, which were frequently in the highest-poverty category of schools nationally, 

thereby resulting in a smaller allocation per low-income student received by these schools. 
Executive Summary xxvi 

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY SCHOOL GRADE LEVEL AND OTHER SCHOOL 

CHARACTERISTICS 

Elementary schools received all Reading First funds and three-fourths of 

Title I funds, while CSR funds were more likely to reach secondary schools. 

As a K–3 program, Reading First provides funds exclusively to schools serving those grades, so it is not 

surprising to find that all Reading First funds went to elementary schools. For Title I, elementary schools 

received 76 percent of the school allocations, considerably more than their share of the nation’s 

low-income students (57 percent). Middle schools received 14 percent of Title I funds and enrolled 

20 percent of all low-income students, while high schools received 10 percent of Title I funds and 

enrolled 22 percent of all low-income students. 

For CSR, the distribution of funds was closer to the distribution of low-income students by school grade 

level: 48 percent went to elementary schools, 34 percent to middle schools, and 19 percent to high 

schools. 

Schools that were identified for improvement were more likely to receive 

Title I funds than non-identified schools, but they received a smaller amount per 

low-income student than did non-identified schools. 

Under NCLB, every state must establish adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets for schools and districts. 

Schools that do not meet AYP for two or more consecutive years are “identified for improvement.” In 

2004–05, 84 percent of the schools identified for improvement received Title I funds, compared with 

54 percent of the schools not identified for improvement. Although identified schools were more likely 

to receive Title I funds, they received a lower amount of funding per low-income student ($556) 

compared with non-identified Title I schools ($624). 

Schoolwide programs accounted for over two-thirds of school-level Title I funding in 

2004–05. 

NCLB allows schools with 40 percent or more students from low-income families to use Title I funds 

for schoolwide programs, which are intended to improve instructional programs throughout the school, 

while other schools must use Title I funds to provide targeted services to specifically identified lowachieving students. 

The number of Title I schools operating schoolwide programs rose from 25,184 in 2000–01 to 31,445 in 

2004–05, after NCLB lowered the schoolwide eligibility threshold from 50 percent poverty to 

40 percent. In 2004–05, schoolwide programs accounted for 56 percent of all Title I schools and 

70 percent of Title I funds, up from 60 percent of Title I funds in 1997–98. Targeted assistance 

programs, the original Title I service delivery model, accounted for the remaining 44 percent of all 

Title I schools and 30 percent of Title I funds allocated to schools in 2004–05. 

Few districts (6 percent) that operated schoolwide programs actually consolidated 

Title I funds with other sources of funding to support schoolwide activities. 

Schoolwide programs may consolidate Title I funds with other federal, state, and local funds in order to 

support a comprehensive, integrated approach to improving instruction. However, most districts 

reported that they had not consolidated Title I funds with other funding sources, but had simply 
Executive Summary xxvii 

coordinated spending strategies. Districts reported that state or district accounting rules and fear of 

potential audit exceptions were major barriers to consolidation of funding. 

USES OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS

Districts allocated between 74 and 83 percent of Title I, Reading First, and CSR 

funds to individual schools. They used between 14 and 21 percent of these funds 

for district-managed services and between 3 and 5 percent of the funds for districtlevel administration. 

Districts may set aside a portion of the federal funds for program administration as well as for programs 

and services that are administered or accounted for at the district level, before allocating the rest of the 

funds to individual schools. In 2004–05, districts allocated an estimated 83 percent of Reading First 

funds, 79 percent of CSR funds, and 74 percent of Title I funds to individual public schools. For Title I, 

21 percent of the funds were used for district-managed services such as professional development, 

preschool, student transportation for school choice, before- and after-school and summer programs, and 

other districtwide instructional support services. These percentages were lower for CSR (18 percent) and 

Reading First (14 percent). The remaining funds (3 to 5 percent) were used for district-level 

administrative costs. 

Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the share of Title I funds allocated to individual schools declined from 

83 percent to 74 percent, while the share used for district-managed services rose from 8 percent to 

21 percent. 

Federal program funds were mainly used for instruction, and for most programs 

examined, the share of federal funds spent on instruction was greater than the 

overall percentage of all elementary-secondary education funds spent on 

instruction. 

For the programs in this study, districts and schools spent between 51 and 75 percent of their federal 

program funds for instruction, which includes instructional staff and other instructional expenditures 

(see Exhibit S.4). Most of the remaining funds were used for instructional support (18 to 42 percent), 

which includes professional development for teachers and other staff, reading coaches, school libraries 

and media centers, counselors and health services, and parent involvement. Administrative costs (which 

also include facilities and transportation costs) accounted for 4 to 10 percent of district expenditures 

under the federal programs in this study. 

The programs with the largest share of funds used for instructional purposes were Title III (75 percent), 

Title I (73 percent), and Perkins (72 percent). For two programs, about two-thirds of the funds were 

used for instruction (Title II at 67 percent and Reading First at 65 percent). For CSR and Section 1003, 

slightly over half of the funds were used for instruction (54 percent and 51 percent, respectively).3 For 

comparison, instructional expenditures accounted for 61 percent of total school district expenditures 

from all revenue sources combined (federal, state, and local). 

 

3 The reader is reminded that Section 1003 funds are included within the totals for Title I as well as being separated here 

for the purpose of examining how these school improvement funds were spent. 
Executive Summary xxviii 

Exhibit S.4 

Uses of Federal Program Funds: 

Share of Expenditures Used for Instruction, Instructional and Student 

Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 59 percent of Title I funds were spent on salaries and 

benefits for instructional staff. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records, 2004–05 (n=79 to 267 districts).

In particular, instructional staff (teachers and aides) accounted for more than half of district expenditures 

from Title I, Title II, and Title III (59 percent, 63 percent, and 55 percent, respectively). Districts also 

spent a considerable portion of Reading First (42 percent) and CSR (31 percent) funds on instructional 

staff. Other instructional expenditures (which mainly included instructional materials and equipment) 

also accounted for a substantial percentage of federal program expenditures, particularly for the Perkins 

vocational education program (45 percent). 

Instructional and student support accounted for 42 percent of Section 1003 funds and 39 percent of 

CSR funds; these expenditures included professional development, student support staff (e.g., 

counselors, social workers, school nurses), instructional support staff (e.g., librarians), and parent 

involvement activities. For the other programs studied, the share used for instructional and student 

support accounted for between 18 and 31 percent of the expenditures. 

The amount of funds used for administration and other support (including school- and district-level 

administration, facilities, and student transportation) varied from 4 percent (Reading First) to 10 percent 

(Title I). 
Executive Summary xxix 

Based on district fiscal records, the six federal programs studied provided 

$1.8 billion to support professional development in 2004–05, with Title I providing 

more than half of these funds. 

Title I and Title II were the main sources of federal funding for professional development. 

Title I provided the largest amount of federal support for professional development ($1.0 billion, or 

57 percent of professional development support provided through the six programs in this study), while 

Title II contributed $518 million (29 percent), followed by Reading First ($106 million) and CSR 

($61 million). As a percentage of districts’ total spending under each program, Section 1003 had the 

largest share of funds used for professional development (40 percent of Section 1003 spending), 

followed by CSR (30 percent) and Title II (19 percent). 

Of the Title II funds spent on professional development, district Title II coordinators reported that over 

half was spent on reading and language arts (29 percent) and mathematics (25 percent), the two subjects 

that are the focus of current NCLB accountability requirements.

District fiscal data may underestimate total district spending on professional 

development. 

A survey of Title II district coordinators produced a substantially higher estimate of districts’ 

Title II expenditures for professional development—$959 million, which is 81 percent more than the 

estimate of $529 million based on district fiscal records. It is possible that some professional 

development expenditures were not clearly identified as such in district financial accounting systems; this 

would result in underestimates of professional development spending across all funding sources. 

Districts used more of their Title II funds for class size reduction than for 

professional development activities. 

Based on the survey of Title II coordinators, spending on teacher salaries to reduce class size accounted 

for 50 percent ($1.4 billion) of district Title II expenditures, followed by professional development 

(31 percent). The survey data produced a similar estimate of spending on class-size reduction as the 

financial records analysis (50 percent vs. 56 percent) but a higher estimate of spending on professional 

development (31 percent vs. 19 percent). However, these findings are generally similar to those from a 

previous district survey conducted in 2002–03 that found that 58 percent of Title II funds were used for 

class size reduction and 25 percent were used for professional development.4

About 88 percent of Title I funds spent on personnel resources at the school level 

were used for salaries and benefits for teachers and aides. 

Of the Title I funds spent on personnel at the school level, 71 percent were used to employ teachers, and 

17 percent were used for teacher aides. The highest-poverty schools spent a significantly lower 

proportion of their Title I personnel funds on instructional staff (83 percent) than did the lowest-poverty 

schools (96 percent) but a higher proportion on instructional support staff (10 percent vs. 2 percent). 

 

4 U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Improving Teacher Quality in U.S. Districts: Districts’ 

Use of Title II, Part A, Funds, 2002–03. Washington, D.C. (2004), available at www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/uof.pdf, 

retrieved June 25, 2007. 
Executive Summary xxx 

Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, Title I schools decreased their reliance on 

Title I teacher aides and increased their reliance on Title I teachers to provide 

services. 

Prior to NCLB, Title I funds were used to employ a larger number of teacher aides than teachers 

(68,724 and 66,002, respectively, in 1997–98). Due to concerns about the quality of the instructional 

support provided by teacher aides, NCLB required that Title I instructional aides must have passed a 

state-endorsed or state-required paraprofessional assessment or must have either two years of college or 

an associate’s degree. Since then, the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher aides paid 

through Title I funds decreased by 10 percent (to 61,952 in 2004–05), while the FTE number of 

Title I teachers increased by 49 percent (to 98,206). The percentage increase in the number of teachers 

was similar to the inflation-adjusted increase in Title I appropriations during this period (46 percent). 

A NATIONAL COMPARISON OF STATE AND LOCAL RESOURCES IN TITLE I AND 

NON–TITLE I SCHOOLS

Title I funding is intended to “supplement, not supplant” the base of state and local resources that would 

be provided in each school within a district in the absence of the Title I program. Moreover, 

Title I requires that the base of state and local resources is to be comparable in Title I and 

non-Title I schools within a district. This report does not examine district compliance with the 

comparability and supplement-not-supplant requirements because the nationally representative sample of 

schools does not include all schools within each sample district. It does, however, provide a national 

picture of how resources compare in Title I and non–Title I schools, as well as in high- and low-poverty 

schools and across other types of schools. 

Title I and non–Title I schools across the nation appeared to have a similar base 

level of state and local school personnel expenditures (i.e., excluding Title I and 

other federal funds). 

On average, the base state and local expenditures per student on both instructional and noninstructional 

school personnel were similar in Title I and non–Title I schools. Elementary schools and high schools 

also showed no statistically significant differences between Title I and non–Title I schools. At the middle 

school level, however, non–Title I schools had base state and local personnel expenditures per student 

($4,902) that were 19 percent higher than Title I schools ($4,136). The highest- and lowest-poverty 

schools also had similar levels of personnel expenditures from state and local funds. 

Teachers in the highest-poverty schools tended to have less experience, were less 

likely to have an advanced degree (master’s degree or higher), and had lower 

salaries than teachers in the lowest-poverty schools. 

On average, the highest-poverty schools employed teachers with less teaching experience (12.4 years) than the 

lowest-poverty schools (14.7 years). Similarly, the proportion of teachers with fewer than three years of 

teaching experience was twice as high in the highest-poverty schools (14 percent) as in the lowest-poverty 

schools (7 percent). The highest-poverty schools also contained a significantly lower proportion of teachers 

with a master’s degree or higher (44 percent) than the lowest-poverty schools (58 percent). The average 

teacher in the highest-poverty schools received a salary that was 10 percent lower than the average for 

teachers in the lowest-poverty schools. 
Executive Summary xxxi 

However, the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty schools were similar with respect to their student-toteacher ratios, the percentage of secondary English and mathematics teachers with a degree in the field they 

taught, and total spending on school personnel. The highest-poverty schools had more teacher aides than in 

the lowest-poverty schools. 

WHAT TITLE I ADDS TO SCHOOL PERSONNEL RESOURCES 

This analysis examines what Title I adds to school-level resources by examining Title I personnel 

expenditures per low-income student in relation to the base amount of state and local personnel expenditures 

per student.

5 

Title I added $408 per low-income student to personnel expenditures, representing a 

9 percent increase over base state and local per student spending on school 

personnel. 

The amount that Title I added to personnel expenditures was highest in elementary schools and 

lowest in high schools, but this amount did not vary significantly by school poverty level, type of 

Title I program (schoolwide or targeted assistance program), or school identification status (i.e., 

whether or not the school was identified for program improvement). 

Across all grade levels in the highest-poverty schools, Title I personnel expenditures per low-income 

student were not significantly different from those in low-poverty schools. However, looking just at 

elementary schools, Title I added a significantly higher amount of personnel resources to the lowestpoverty schools than to the highest-poverty schools. 

In an average-size Title I school, Title I added approximately two teachers and one 

teacher aide. 

Overall, in an average-size Title I school with 500 students, Title I added a total of 3.5 additional FTE 

staff, including 1.9 FTE teachers, 1.2 FTE teacher aides, and 0.4 FTE noninstructional staff. The 

addition of Title I staff resulted in a 7 percent increase in the average number of teachers, a 24 percent 

increase in the number of teacher aides, and a 3 percent increase in the number of noninstructional staff. 

Title I also supported a larger number of staff in elementary schools (4.3 FTEs) than in middle schools 

(2.4 FTEs) or high schools (1.1 FTEs). Similarly, Title I funds added more staff (4.5) to the 

highest-poverty schools than to the lowest-poverty schools (1.7 FTEs). Well over 80 percent of the FTE 

staff added through Title I funds were teachers and aides. 

 

5 The analysis implicitly assumed that each school distributes its state and local school-level personnel resources equally 

across all students; thus, the amount spent on the average student is identical to the amount spent on each low-income 

student. While this assumption may not be true, it permitted an examination of what Title I added to school-level 

resources (to provide additional support for at-risk students) in different types of schools and as a percentage of the 

average per-student resources available before the addition of Title I funds. Title I expenditures per low-income student 

were examined because Title I funds are allocated to schools on the basis of the numbers of low-income students in 

order to target more of the funds to schools with the greatest needs. 
Executive Summary xxxii 

CONCLUSION 

NCLB, the latest reauthorization of ESEA, provides a blend of requirements, incentives, and resources 

to help schools and districts improve achievement for all students, particularly the lowest-performing 

students. Effectively targeting resources to the students with the greatest needs is a central focus under 

this law. 

Overall, federal education funds were more strongly targeted to high-poverty districts than were state or 

local funds but did not close the funding gap. The highest-poverty districts received more than three 

times as much federal funding as the lowest-poverty districts but received 8 percent less in total funding. 

Title I and other federal programs are often viewed as providing additional resources to meet the greater 

needs of districts and schools with high concentrations of poor students, but in fact the federal resources 

do not even fully compensate for the lower levels of state and local funding that these districts receive. 

A variety of changes to Title I provisions have been made in an effort to increase targeting of funds to 

the highest-poverty districts and schools, including the addition of two new funding formulas. At the 

district level, the share of funds going to the highest-poverty districts has increased slightly, but at the 

school level, Title I targeting has not changed. In the highest-poverty schools, Title I funding per 

low-income student had not increased since 1997–98, despite substantial increases in appropriations, and 

the highest-poverty Title I schools continued to receive less Title I funding per low-income student in 

2004–05 than both medium- and low-poverty Title I schools. 

The six federal programs included in the study provided a total of $18.4 billion to support elementary 

and secondary education. Most of the federal funds from these programs were used for instruction (e.g., 

teachers, aides, and instructional materials) or for instructional support (e.g., professional development), 

with relatively small amounts allocated for administrative activities. 

Across the six federal programs, about 10 percent of the funds ($1.8 billion) were used for professional 

development, with Title I providing more than half of these funds ($1.009 billion), followed by 

Title II ($518 million). Surveys of Title II district coordinators suggest that these figures, based on 

financial accounting data, may underestimate the total investment in professional development from 

these programs. Both the fiscal and survey data indicate that spending on class size reduction accounts 

for a larger share of Title II expenditures than professional development. 

Looking at the impact of Title I on school-level resources, Title I expenditures on staff represented a 

9 percent increase over the base level of staffing in these schools, and this did not vary by school poverty 

level or school improvement status. In an average-size Title I school, this translates to the addition of 

two teachers and one teacher aide. The marked increase in the number of Title I teachers (a 50 percent 

increase from 1997–98 to 2004–05), accompanied by a decrease in the number of Title I teacher aides, 

suggests some improvement in the qualifications of the Title I instructional workforce over this period. 

In general, federal funds have been an important source of support to the highest-poverty districts and 

schools, and the majority of funds from the six federal programs studied have been used for instruction. 

Yet neither these programs nor all federal programs combined have provided sufficient funding to make 

up for the greater access to local revenues available in the lowest-poverty districts compared with the 

highest-poverty districts in the United States.
Chapter I 1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Achieving the goals of federal education legislation depends critically on how federal funds are 

distributed and used. Since the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, 

various federal programs have been created to support educational improvement and target additional 

resources to meet the educational needs of school-age children who are economically and educationally 

disadvantaged. This report presents findings on the targeting and uses of federal education funds for 

six federal programs: 

• Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies (Title I, Part A) (including a separate analysis of 

funds reserved for school improvement activities under Section 1003(a)) 

• Reading First (Title I, Part B, Subpart 1) 

• Comprehensive School Reform (Title I, Part F) 

• Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (Title II, Part A) 

• Title III: English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 

• Perkins Vocational Education State Grants (Title I of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 

Technical Education Act)6 

This report is part of a series being produced under the National Longitudinal Study of the No Child Left 

Behind Act (NLS-NCLB), which tracks the implementation of key NCLB provisions in a nationally 

representative sample of districts and schools, and a companion state-level study, the Study of State 

Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (SSI-NCLB). Other reports in this 

series examine the implementation of NCLB provisions related to accountability, teacher quality, and 

Title I school choice and supplemental educational services. Data for this combination of studies 

included interviews with state education officials, surveys at the district and school levels, and the 

collection of district fiscal and payroll records. Whereas the other components of the NLS-NCLB and 

SSI-NCLB collected data in two school years, 2004–05 and 2006–07, data on the targeting and uses of 

federal funds were collected for only one year, 2004–05, because of the greater burden of this type of 

intensive data collection. 

OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN THIS REPORT

In 2004–05, the six federal programs in this study provided $18.4 billion to support elementary and 

secondary education (see Exhibit 1). This amount represented 50 percent of total funding appropriated 

for U.S. Department of Education elementary and secondary education programs and about 4 percent of 

total K–12 revenues from all sources (federal, state, and local combined). The largest program, Title I, 

Part A, provided 2.6 percent of total revenues from all sources but about a third (33 percent) of total 

funds appropriated for U.S. Department of Education elementary and secondary education programs. 

 

6 The first five of these programs are part of ESEA; the sixth (Perkins) was authorized under a separate law focused on 

career and technical education at the secondary and postsecondary levels. The Perkins program was reauthorized in 

2006 as the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. 
Chapter I 2 

Exhibit 1 

Percentage of Federal and Total Elementary-Secondary Revenues 

Provided Through the Six Federal Programs in This Study, 2004–05 

 Fundinga

($ in Millions) 

Share of U.S. Dept. of 

Education Funding for 

ElementarySecondary Education 

Share of Total 

Revenues for 

ElementarySecondary Education 

Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies 

(Title I, Part A)b $12,342 33% 2.6% 

Reading First (Title I, Part B, Subpart 1)c $1,024 3% 0.2% 

Comprehensive School Reform (Title I, 

Part F)d $234 1% 0.0% 

Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants (Title II, Part A) $2,930 8% 0.6% 

Title III: English Language Acquisition 

State Grants (Title III, Part A) $681 2% 0.1% 

Perkins Vocational Education State 

Grants (Title I of the Carl D. Perkins 

Vocational and Technical Education Act)

e $1,195 3% 0.3% 

Total of the six programs $18,406 50% 3.9% 

Total U.S. Department of Education 

funding for elementary-secondary 

educationf $36,942 7.8% 

Total revenues for elementarysecondary education (all sources)g $487,761 

Exhibit reads: Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies accounted for 33 percent of total funds 

appropriated for U.S. Department of Education elementary and secondary education programs for 

FY 2004, which are primarily intended for use during the 2004–05 school year. 

a Funding amounts represent total appropriations for each listed federal program. Not all of these funds are allocated 

to school districts; states may reserve a portion of the funds for state administration and state-level activities, and 

some of funds are allocated to other types of agencies in accordance with statutory provisions. For example, some 

funds appropriated for Title II and Perkins grants are allocated to postsecondary institutions. 

b Title I, Part A, includes the amount of funds reserved for school improvement activities under Section 1003(a). 

c Reading First appropriations were reduced to $393 million in FY 2008. 

d CSR appropriations were reduced substantially in FY 2006 (to $7.9 million). These funds currently are used to fund 

the Comprehensive School Reform Clearinghouse, and do not support grants to individual school districts. 

e For Perkins, a substantial share of the funds were allocated to postsecondary institutions and to state-level activities. 

The National Assessment of Vocational Education estimated that, in 2001, states allocated 38 percent of the funds to 

postsecondary institutions. After subtracting the estimated postsecondary share as well as federal and state set-asides, 

we estimate that approximately $617 million of the funding for 2004–05 was allocated to school districts. 

f

 The largest U.S. Department of Education program supporting elementary-secondary education that is not included 

in this study is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B (Grants to States), which had appropriations of 

$10.068 billion in FY 2004.

g The elementary and secondary revenues for 2004–05 from all sources were $487.8 billion reported in NCES (2007), 

Digest of Education Statistics, Table 162 (primary data source: Common Core of Data). 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of 

Data (CCD), “School District Finance Survey (F-33).” 
Chapter I 3 

Throughout this report, we refer to these six programs by names that are shorter than their full official 

names: Title I, Part A (or Title I), Reading First, CSR, Title II, Title III, and Perkins Title I (or Perkins). 

It should be noted that some of these titles include other programs that are not covered by this study.7

The following discussion provides an overview of the six federal programs in this study, including their 

goals and some of the specific program requirements on the uses of funds.8 The allocation provisions for 

each of the six programs are described in the next section of this chapter. 

• Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies (Title I, Part A) 

Title I, Part A, provides flexible funding to meet the educational needs of low-achieving students 

in high-poverty schools. Title I funds may be used to pay for additional instructional staff, 

professional development, school choice-related transportation, supplemental educational 

services, and other strategies for raising student achievement. Title I has mechanisms for holding 

states, districts, and schools accountable for results, and it provides potential additional support 

to low-performing schools while offering alternatives to students in these schools to give them 

access to a quality education. 

Under Section 1003(a) of Title I, states must set aside 4 percent of Title I, Part A, funds to 

provide technical assistance and support to local school districts with schools that have been 

identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Section 1116 (schools that 

have not made adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years or longer, toward the goal of 

all students achieving proficiency on state reading and mathematics assessments by 2013–14. 

• Reading First (Title I, Part B, Subpart 1) 

The purpose of Reading First is to ensure that all children learn to read well by the end of third 

grade.9 The program provides funds to states and school districts to support scientifically based 

reading programs, including professional development to help teachers develop the skills they 

need to implement instructional programs and strategies that have been proven to prevent or 

remedy reading failure. 

• Comprehensive School Reform (Title I, Part F) 

The CSR program is intended to improve student achievement, especially among children in 

low-performing, high-poverty schools, by providing start-up financial support to implement 

comprehensive school reforms that are founded on scientifically based research and effective 

practices. The CSR statute identifies 11 components of comprehensive school reform, including 

the use of research-based methods; a comprehensive design; focus on student achievement; 

support from teachers and principals; high-quality and continuous professional development; 

parent involvement; high-quality external technical support; and a plan to evaluate the program’s 

effectiveness in improving student achievement. (Beginning in FY 2006, CSR funds have been 

 

7 For example, Title II also includes Part B (Mathematics and Science Partnerships), Part C (Innovation for Teacher 

Quality), and Part D (Enhancing Education Through Technology), which are not covered in the current study. 8 For a more detailed description of the purpose and key requirements of each program, see No Child Left Behind: A 

Desktop Reference (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). 9 Prekindergarten programs are excluded from Reading First. A separate program called Early Reading First (Title I, 

Part B, Subpart 2) is targeted to preschool children. 
Chapter I 4 

used to support the Comprehensive School Reform Clearinghouse and the program’s remaining 

Quality Initiatives grants do not support grants to individual school districts.) 

• Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (Title II, Part A) 

NCLB set the goal that all teachers of core academic subjects would be highly qualified, as 

defined by their state, by the end of the 2005–06 school year. Under NCLB, Title II, Part A, 

provides teacher quality grants to be used to prepare, train, and recruit high-quality teachers and 

principals who are capable of ensuring that all children achieve to high standards. Districts may 

use Title II, Part A, funds to provide professional development, hire additional teachers to 

reduce class sizes, reward quality teaching, and recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and 

principals. 

• Title III: English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 

The purpose of Title III, Part A, is to ensure that students with limited English proficiency 

(LEP students) perform well in English and meet the same challenging state academic content 

standards as other children. Like Title I, Title III holds states and districts accountable for 

improving the English proficiency and academic achievement of LEP students. School districts 

must use Title III funds to provide high-quality language instruction programs that have been 

proven effective in increasing English proficiency and student achievement. They must also 

provide high-quality professional development to school personnel to improve the instruction 

and assessment of LEP students. 

• Perkins Vocational Education State Grants 

This program supports career and technical education to prepare secondary and postsecondary 

students for careers with qualifications other than a baccalaureate or advanced degree. The 

program was reauthorized in 2006 as the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, 

but during the time period covered by this study (2004–05), the provisions of the Perkins 

Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 were still in effect. Basic State Grants under Title I, 

Part A, of the Perkins Act provide states with matching funds to develop, implement, and expand 

access to vocational and technical education by supporting activities such as curriculum 

improvement, professional development, equipment purchase, and career counseling. 

TARGETING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROVISIONS FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

For five of the six programs in this report, the U.S. Department of Education allocates funds to states on 

the basis of statutory formulas; the states then suballocate the funds to school districts and other 

subgrantees after reserving funds for state-level activities and other set-asides authorized under each 

program. For Title I, Part A, the Department of Education allocates funds directly to the school district 

level using four statutory funding formulas, but states are permitted to adjust these allocations under 

certain circumstances (as discussed below) and to reserve funds for Section 1003(a) school improvement 

activities and state administration. For some programs, districts suballocate some or all of the funds to 

individual schools. The following section provides a brief overview of the provisions for allocating these 

federal funds to states, districts, and schools, followed by a more detailed description in Exhibit 2. 
Chapter I 5 

Allocations to states and school districts 

Each of the six programs allocates funds in part based on numbers of children, either directly or 

indirectly, who are targeted by the program. Title I and Reading First use Census estimates of the 

number of poor children, and CSR allocations are based on states’ shares of Title I funds and therefore 

are indirectly based on child poverty data. Title II allocates a portion of the funds (funds over the 

2001 allocations level) to states on the basis of state shares of poor school-age children and all 

school-age children. Title III distributes funds to states based on each state’s share of all LEP and 

immigrant children, and Perkins Title I state grants are allocated based on the state population for 

three major age groups: ages 15 to 19, ages 20 to 24, and ages 25 to 65. 

Other state-level formula factors include state average per-pupil expenditures (Title I), state fiscal effort 

and fiscal equity factors (Title I), average per capita income (Perkins), state minimum provisions that 

provide larger allocations to small states (Title I, Title II, Title III, and Perkins), and hold-harmless 

provisions that limit the amount of funds a state or a district can lose because of reductions in the 

number of formula children or other changes (Title I and Perkins). For Title II, each state receives the 

amount it was allocated in FY 2001 under the Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size 

Reduction programs, and only “new” funds over the FY 2001 funding level are allocated by formula, 

which has an effect similar to that of a hold-harmless provision. 

All six programs allow states to reserve some of the funds for state-level activities, including state 

administration of the program, but most of the funds are allocated to the districts or other subgrantees 

through either statutory formulas (Title I, Title II, Title III, and Perkins Title I) or a discretionary grant 

process (Title I Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR). 

Title I, as the largest federal education program, has developed the most complex allocation provisions, 

with funds allocated to school districts based on four statutory funding formulas: Basic Grants, 

Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants.10 States are permitted 

to adjust these allocations to reflect changes in school district boundaries or the creation of new school 

districts, and may use alternative poverty data to make their own allocations to school districts if 

approved by the secretary. States may also reserve up to 1 percent of total allocations for state-level 

administrative activities, and must reserve 4 percent of allocations for Section 1003(a) school 

improvement grants. 

For three of the four programs suballocated by formula, the criteria used for state allocations to school 

districts are similar to the criteria that the federal government uses for allocations to states. For Title I, 

states may reallocate funds to school districts by using alternative data on the number of poor school-age 

children but using the same four statutory formulas (Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Incentive 

grants). For Title II, states suballocate funds to districts on the basis of a combination of each district’s 

2001 allocations under the Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size Reduction programs 

and the share of poor school-age children and all school-age children. Title III funds are suballocated on 

the basis of numbers of LEP students enrolled in each district, with a small percentage (up to 15 percent) 

made available for eligible entities that have experienced a significant increase in their population of 

immigrant students. For Perkins Title I grants, states have the choice of using either the need-based 

formula in the law or an alternative formula that targets the most disadvantaged students. 

 

10 Prior to 1999, the Department of Education allocated Title I funds to the county-level and states suballocated the 

funds to school districts within each county. 
Chapter I 6 

Discretionary or competitive grants differ from funds suballocated by formula because states must select 

districts and other grantees on the basis of their grant applications. For Reading First, grantee districts 

are selected competitively, but the grant amounts are based on a formula (the number or percentage of 

K–3 students who are reading below grade level and the share of Title I funds received during the 

preceding school year). For CSR, priority is given to districts that plan to use funds in schools that are 

identified for improvement or are in corrective action. 

For Title I, Section 1003(a), states must give preference to school districts that serve the lowest-achieving 

schools and those that demonstrate the greatest need for assistance and the strongest commitment to 

ensuring that their schools meet their improvement goals. Alternatively, instead of directly allocating 

Section 1003 funds to individual districts, states may, with the agreement of school districts, use the 

funds directly to provide technical assistance and support through school support teams, educational 

service agencies, or similar entities. This study asked states how they distributed Section 1003 funds in 

2004–05. Eight states established a competitive grant process in which districts needed to submit an 

application for the funds. Thirteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico allocated school 

improvement funds solely on the basis of the number of schools that did not make adequate yearly 

progress for at least two years and were therefore designated as in need of improvement. Sixteen states 

established criteria that combined a school’s improvement status with additional factors, such as the 

highest populations of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 

Within-district suballocations 

Within districts, federal funds may be used to provide districtwide services or may be allocated directly to 

specific schools as specified under the law. For some programs, the statute contains specific guidelines 

on the allocation of funds to schools (Title I, Reading First, CSR); for others, funds are usually allocated 

and accounted for at the district level (Title II, Title III, and Perkins Title I). 

Title I requires school districts to distribute funds to schools with high concentrations of low-income 

students. School districts allocate most of their Title I funds to eligible schools based on their number of 

low-income students, typically using data from the free or reduced-price lunch program.11 A school is 

eligible if its attendance area has a poverty rate that is at least equal to the district average poverty rate or 

35 percent (whichever is less). However, districts may choose to concentrate their Title I funds on their 

highest-poverty schools and limit school eligibility to a poverty level that is higher than the districtwide 

average.12 Districts may give schools different amounts per low-income student as long as schools with 

higher poverty rates receive higher allocations per low-income student than schools with lower poverty 

rates. If the district serves schools with poverty rates below 35 percent, it must ensure that each school’s 

Title I allocation is at least 125 percent of the districtwide allocation per low-income student.13 

 

11 In 2004–05, 87 percent of Title I districts used free or reduced-price lunch as an indicator of school poverty levels for 

allocating Title I funds to schools, about the same as in 1997–98 (90 percent). Other less common measures reported by 

the districts were the number of children eligible for free lunch only (5 percent), school-age children eligible to receive 

Medicaid (4 percent), and children in families receiving assistance under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or 

TANF (3 percent). The use of the TANF measure appears to have declined from 1997–98, when 29 percent of districts 

reported using this measure for allocating Title I funds. Similarly, the use of Medicaid has also declined, with 9 percent 

reported in 1997–98 (see Appendix Exhibit C.4). 

12 A school district must rank its eligible schools on the basis of each school’s percentage of disadvantaged children and 

must first fund all the schools with 75 percent or more disadvantaged students before funding schools with lower 

poverty rates, which the district may rank separately by grade span. However, the rank-ordering rule does not apply to 

small school districts that either have fewer than 1,000 students or have only one school in each grade span. In 2004–05, 

40 percent of Title I districts said they did not apply the rank-order requirement because they met the small-size criteria. 

Thirty percent of Title I districts ranked schools by their poverty rates within grade span (see Appendix Exhibit C.5). 13 In 2004–05, about 12 percent of the districts applied the 125 percent minimum per child allocation. 
Chapter I 7 

For Reading First, school districts must distribute funds to schools that have the highest percentages or 

numbers of students in kindergarten through grade 3 who are reading below grade level and are 

identified for school improvement under Title I (Section 1116(b)) or have the highest percentages or 

numbers of poor children counted under Title I (Section 1124(c)). For CSR, states competitively award

grants to school districts on behalf of specific schools and must give priority to schools that have been 

identified for improvement. 

Exhibit 2 

Statutory Provisions Governing the Allocation of Funds 

to States and Within States in FY 2004

Formulas for Determining State Allocations Within-State Allocations

Title I, 

Part A

The U.S. Department of Education allocates Title I, 

Part A, funds to the district level by using four 

separate funding formulas: 

• Basic Grants: Funds are allocated to eligible 

districts in proportion to each district’s share of 

formula-eligible children, which primarily include 

children from families living below the federal 

poverty line, based on annual estimates 

produced by the Census Bureau. Districts are 

eligible if they have at least 10 formula children 

and the number is more than 2 percent of the 

district’s school-age population. 

• Concentration Grants: This formula is similar to 

that for basic grants but provides funds only to 

districts with more than 6,500 formula children or 

15 percent formula children. 

• Targeted Grants: This weighted-child formula 

allocates larger amounts per pupil to districts with 

higher numbers or percentages of formula 

children. Districts are eligible if they have at least 

10 formula children and the number is at least 

5 percent of the district’s school-age population. 

• Education Finance Incentive Grants: This 

formula applies state-level factors that provide 

larger allocations per pupil to states with higher 

fiscal effort and fiscal equity—that is, to states 

with higher state and local expenditures per pupil 

relative to their per capita income and to states 

with less variation in per-pupil expenditures 

among districts within the state.a

 District eligibility 

is the same as for targeted grants. 

All four formulas also incorporate a state per-pupil 

expenditure factor that serves as a proxy to adjust 

for cost-of-education differences across states,b

 as 

well as state minimum allocations that provide larger 

allocations to small states and hold-harmless 

provisions that limit the amount of funds a district 

can lose because of reductions in its number of 

formula children or other changes. 

States adjust the district allocations made by 

the Department to: 

a) account for newly created school districts 

(e.g., charter schools) and district boundary 

changes; 

b) reserve funds for school improvement, state 

administration, and the state academic 

achievement awards programs; and 

c) allow, in the case of several states, the use 

of alternative data to redistribute funds among 

districts with fewer than 20,000 total residents. 

Under Section 1003 of Title I, states must set 

aside 4 percent of the funds for school 

improvement and must allocate at least 

95 percent of these funds to school districts 

with schools identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring. States may 

allocate these funds to districts through either 

a formula or a competitive process. 

State education agencies must give 

preference to school districts that serve the 

lowest-achieving schools. In addition, these 

districts must demonstrate the greatest need 

for assistance and the strongest commitment 

to ensuring that their schools are meeting their 

improvement goals. Instead of directly 

allocating Section 1003 funds to districts 

themselves, states may, with approval from 

school districts, directly provide technical 

assistance and support through such entities 

as school support teams or educational 

service agencies. 

continued next page 
Chapter I 8 

Exhibit 2 (Continued) 

Statutory Provisions Governing the Allocation of Funds 

to States and Within States in FY 2004

Formulas for Determining State Allocations Within-State Allocations

Reading 

First 

(Title I, 

Part B) 

Reading First is a formula grant awarded to a state 

for up to 6 years. Allocations to states are based on 

the proportion of the number of children aged 5 to 

17 who reside within the state and are from families 

with income below the poverty line. 

States use at least 80 percent of the funds for 

awards to school districts through competitive 

grants, with the grant amounts based on the 

number (or percentage) of K–3 students who 

are reading below grade level and the district’s 

share of Title I, Part A, funds received during 

the preceding fiscal year. 

States may reserve up to 20 percent of the 

funds for professional development, technical 

assistance, and administration and reporting. 

Of this, not more than 10 percent can be used 

for planning, administration, and reporting. 

CSR 

(Title I, 

Part F) 

As a formula grant, state allocations for CSR funds 

are based on the ratio of Title I, Part A, funds for 

each state applied to the total allocation available to 

the states in the previous year. 

States award competitive grants to school 

districts. Grants are renewable for up to 

3 years. Priority is given to districts that plan to 

use funds in schools identified for 

improvement or in corrective action. The 

minimum award to each school or consortium 

of small schools (not more than 500 students) 

is $50,000. 

States may reserve not more than 5 percent of 

the funds for administration, evaluation, and 

technical assistance. 

Title II, 

Part A 

The Department of Education first allocates to each 

state the amount the state received for 

FY 2001 under the Eisenhower Professional 

Development State Grants and Class Size 

Reduction programs. Remaining funds are then 

allocated to states by formula, with 35 percent of the 

funds allocated on the basis of states’ relative share 

of the population aged 5 to 17 and 65 percent on the 

basis of states’ relative share of poor children aged 

5 to 17. A state minimum provision guarantees that 

each state receives at least one-half of 1 percent of 

these remaining funds. 

Each state uses 95 percent of its funds for 

subgrants to school districts; 2.5 percent or 

the state’s share of $125 million, whichever is 

less, for subgrants to eligible partnerships (to 

institutions of higher education); and the 

remainder for state-level activities. 

Subgrants to school districts are allocated 

using a formula similar to the one that the 

U.S. Department of Education uses for state 

allocations, except that after school districts 

receive the amount equivalent to their 

2001 allocations from the Eisenhower 

Professional Development and Class Size 

Reduction programs, the remaining funds are 

then allocated on the following basis: 

80 percent on districts’ relative share of poor 

children aged 5 to 17 and 20 percent on the 

relative share of the total population aged 5 to 

17. 

Subgrants to eligible partnerships are 

awarded competitively by the state agency for 

higher education working in conjunction with 

the state education agency. 

continued next page 
Chapter I 9 

Exhibit 2 (Continued) 

Statutory Provisions Governing the Allocation of Funds 

to States and Within States in FY 2004

Formulas for Determining State Allocations Within-State Allocations

Title III, 

Part A 

The Department of Education allocates Title III funds 

to states by using a formula based on each state’s 

share of the nation’s limited English proficient (LEP) 

children and share of the nation’s immigrant 

children. 

States must distribute at least 95 percent of the 

funds as subgrants to school districts and other 

eligible entities. There are two kinds of 

subgrants that states may award: 

a) Formula subgrants for LEP students based 

on the number of LEP students enrolled in 

schools served by the entity; and 

b) Subgrants from a state set-aside (not to 

exceed 15 percent of the state allocation) 

for eligible entities that have experienced a 

significant increase in their population of 

immigrant students. 

States may retain up to 5 percent of the funds 

for professional development, planning, 

evaluation, administration, interagency 

coordination, technical assistance, and 

recognition activities. 

Perkins 

(Title I) 

Allocations are based on the average per capita 

income and distribution of the state’s population for 

the three major age groups (high school-age 

children, aged 15 to 19; young adults, aged 20 to 24; 

and the rest of the population before retirement, 

aged 25 to 65). 

The formula provides for a minimum state allocation 

of at least 0.5 percent of the total, and a “hold 

harmless” provision in the formula ensures that no 

state’s share of the appropriation is less than its 

share of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. 

States must distribute at least 85 percent of the 

funds to school districts and postsecondary 

institutions using either the need-based formula 

in the law or an alternative formula that targets 

the most disadvantaged schools. States have 

discretion about the share they allocate to 

secondary vs. postsecondary education. 

States may retain up to 10 percent of the funds 

for leadership activities and no more than 

5 percent or $250,000, whichever is less, of the 

funds for administrative purposes. States must 

match on a dollar-for-dollar basis the funds they 

reserve for state administration. States must set 

aside a portion of the retained funds to serve 

individuals in state institutions (such as 

correctional institutions and institutions that 

serve individuals with disabilities) and 

individuals pursuing employment in fields that 

are traditionally dominated by one gender. 

Notes: 

a The Title I fiscal effort factor assigns a higher multiplier to states that spend more relative to their per capita income. It is 

calculated by multiplying the three-year state average per-pupil expenditures by the three-year national average per capita 

income, then dividing by the product of state per capita income and national per-pupil expenditures. The resulting multiplier 

is restricted to no more than 1.05 and no less than 0.95. The Title I fiscal equity factor is based on a coefficient of variation 

for district per-pupil expenditures in each state; in computing these per-pupil expenditures, each formula child is weighted as

1.4 children, so a district with many formula children must actually spend more to be considered as having expenditures equal 

to those of a district with fewer formula children. The rationale is that formula children are, on average, more expensive to 

educate. 

b To adjust Title I, Part A, allocations for cost-of-education differences across states, the Department multiplies each eligible 

school district’s number of formula children by the state per-pupil expenditure factor, yielding each district’s “entitlement.” 

Then, all entitlements are reduced proportionately so that the national total equals the amount that Congress appropriated for 

each formula.
Chapter I 10 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND DATA SOURCES FOR THIS REPORT 

This report addresses three broad questions on how federal funds are targeted and used. 

• Where does the money go? How are federal funds distributed among districts and 

schools? How are these funds distributed in relation to poverty levels, school grade levels, 

urbanicity, and schools identified for improvement? Have Title I funding patterns changed 

since the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA? (See Chapter II.) 

• What does the money buy? How do school districts use federal education funds for 

various purposes and strategies (e.g., administration, instruction, instructional support, 

professional development, supplemental educational services, choice-related transportation) 

to improve student learning? To what extent do federal programs add to the school’s total 

resources? (See Chapters III, IV.) 

• How do school districts and schools use flexibility options in the law to combine and 

use federal funds more flexibly? (See Chapter III.) 

To address these questions, this report presents findings from the National Longitudinal Study of No 

Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB). The study collected data on federal program allocations from 

FY 2004 appropriations (which provided funds for use primarily during the 2004–05 school year) from 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The study also collected data from a nationally 

representative sample of 300 school districts, selected for the overall NLS-NCLB project, on federal 

program allocations and expenditure data for the 2004–05 school year. At the school level, the study 

collected fiscal and payroll data for a sample of 1,483 schools within the sampled districts. Although the 

sample of 300 districts accounted for only 2 percent of the nation’s school districts, the sample districts 

accounted for more than 35 percent of all Title I funds because large districts and high-poverty districts 

were oversampled. 

The NLS-NCLB conducted surveys of district and school staff during 2004–05 on a range of topics 

related to the accountability and teacher quality provisions of NCLB. Survey data used in this report 

include district responses about the consolidation of funds in schoolwide programs and teacher 

responses about their years of experience and academic degrees. 

Response rates for resource allocation data at the district level were 96 percent for budget and 

expenditure data, 91 percent for federal program allocations to schools, and 72 percent for more detailed 

information requested on the uses of Title II, Part A, funds. School-level payroll data files were provided 

for 81 percent of the sample schools. Survey response rates ranged from 84 to 96 percent for the surveys 

of district and school staff. State allocations to districts were received from all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

The study also analyzed extant data from other data sources, including district-level estimates of 

school-age children and poor children from the Census Bureau and data from the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) and School District Finance Survey (F-33). 

To examine changes since the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, this report incorporates comparisons to 

data for the 1997–98 school year that were collected by the Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding (SERFF), which was conducted for the U.S. Department of Education (Chambers et al., 2000). 

The SERFF data have been converted to constant 2004–05 dollars, using the Consumer Price Index, to 

provide comparable data. 
Chapter I 11 

See Appendix A for more detail on the sample, data collection instruments, and data sources. 

TECHNICAL NOTES

Federal fiscal year versus school year 

All data collected from local schools and districts for the present study correspond to the 

2004–05 school year. However, federal funds available to be spent in 2004–05 by state and local 

education agencies reflect funds allocated by the federal government during the federal fiscal year 

2004 (subsequently referred to simply as FY 2004). 

Measurement of poverty 

This study used two different poverty measures in the analysis of district- and school-level data: 

• District poverty levels: percentage of school-age children living below the federal 

poverty threshold. The Census Bureau produces annual estimates for each school district of 

the number of school-age children (aged 5 to 17) living in households with incomes below the 

federal poverty threshold. The poverty threshold varies by family size and is adjusted annually 

for inflation but is not adjusted for geographic differences in the cost of living.14 The 

2003 school district estimates were used in the district-level analyses in this report.15 

• School poverty levels: percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 

The National Center for Education Statistics collects annual data on the number of children 

who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, which includes those students who live in 

households with income levels up to 185 percent of the federal poverty threshold.16 

This report uses the term poor child in analyses using the Census estimate of poor school-age children and 

the term low-income student (or pupil) in analyses using counts of students eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunches. Because the school-level poverty measure (free or reduced-price lunch) includes roughly twice 

as many children as the Census poverty measure used for district-level analyses, the average allocation 

per low-income student is considerably smaller in the school-level analyses than the average allocation 

per poor child in the district-level analyses.17 

Title I, Part A, and Section 1003(a) funds 

The Title I analyses presented in the following chapters include Title I, Section 1003(a), school 

improvement funds. States and districts were asked to report separately on the allocation and uses of 

Section 1003(a) funds, but not all were able to do so. Five states were unable to provide district

allocations data, and four states did not provide information on the criteria they used to allocate these 

 

14 The federal poverty threshold is applied to all local jurisdictions without making any adjustment for variations in the 

cost of living. Areas with a relatively high cost of living will tend to appear less poor than they really are. 15 The school district estimates were based on poverty tabulations from Census 2000, using school district boundaries 

corresponding to school year 2003–04 (see http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/school/sd03over.html, retrieved 

Dec. 18, 2007). 

16 U.S. Department of Agriculture (March 2004). Child nutrition programs: Income eligibility guidelines. Federal Register, 

69(60), 16226-16229. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEGs04-05.pdf. 17 The census poverty data provide a more precise measure of childhood poverty than the counts of children eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunches; however, census poverty estimates are not available at the school level. 
Chapter I 12 

funds. Of the 127 districts in our sample that received Section 1003 funds in 2004–05, 48 districts did 

not provide fiscal data on the uses of such funds. When appropriate, a separate analysis of Section 

1003(a) funds is presented alongside the analysis of Title I funds to examine how the targeting and uses 

of Section 1003(a) funds differed from those of Title I funds as a whole. 

Statistical significance 

References in the text that are based on sample data to report differences between groups or over time 

only discuss statistically significant differences (i.e., differences whose probability of occurring by chance 

are five percent or lower). In a number of places, the exhibits display differences that may be relatively 

large in magnitude but are not statistically significant. In some cases, this results from small samples of 

schools or school districts in one of the comparison categories. Small samples generally result in higher 

standard errors for the estimates, which reduces the ability to detect statistically significant differences 

between categories of schools or districts. Therefore, the sample sizes are generally reported in the notes 

associated with each exhibit, and the interested reader may consult Appendix C, where the standard 

errors for the estimates are displayed for all exhibits and tables presented in the body of the report. 
Chapter II 13 

II. TARGETING OF FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDS 

The NCLB programs covered in this study include some of the largest federal programs supporting 

elementary and secondary education. While the provisions for distributing these various program funds 

differ from one another, most of these programs are intended to target greater resources to high-poverty 

districts and schools. This chapter begins by examining the distribution of all federal revenues among 

high- and low-poverty districts in comparison to the distribution of state and local funding for school 

districts. This overview is followed by a more specific examination of the distribution of funds for the 

six federal programs included in this study in relation to district poverty levels and urbanicity. For three 

of the programs (Title I, Reading First, and CSR), we were able to obtain school-level allocations and to 

examine the distribution of these funds by school poverty, urbanicity, grade level, and, for Title I, school 

improvement status and type of Title I program. For Title I, we also examined how targeting has 

changed since 1997–98, based on comparisons with data collected by the Study of Educational 

Resources and Federal Funding (SERFF). 

Key Findings 

• Federal education funds were more strongly targeted to high-poverty districts than 

were local and state funds. While the highest-poverty districts received higher levels of 

federal and state revenues, this was outweighed by the much lower levels of revenue 

districts received from local sources, resulting in lower total per-pupil revenues. 

• In 2004–05, more than half of Section 1003(a) (73 percent), Title I (52 percent), 

Reading First (58 percent), and CSR (57 percent) funds went to the highest-poverty 

districts, which served 49 percent of the nation’s poor children and 25 percent of the 

nation’s children. Between 43 and 45 percent of Title II, Title III, and Perkins funds went 

to the highest-poverty districts. 

• The overall share of Title I funds going to the highest-poverty districts changed only 

marginally between 1997–98 and 2004–05 (from 50 to 52 percent). The highest-poverty 

districts received a substantial increase in their average Title I allocation per poor child, after 

adjusting for inflation (57 percent), but this largely reflects the overall growth in 

Title I appropriations during this period (51 percent).

• At the school level, Title I funds reached 56 percent of the nation’s public schools in 

2004–05. Title I funds flowed to nearly all of the highest-poverty schools (93 percent), and 

also went to about one-quarter of the lowest-poverty schools (23 percent). Elementary 

schools were more than twice as likely to receive Title I funds (71 percent) than were 

secondary schools (32 percent). 

• Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, Title I funding per low-income student in the 

highest-poverty schools remained virtually unchanged. The highest-poverty schools 

continued to receive smaller Title I allocations per low-income student than did the 

lowest-poverty schools. While Title I funds received by the highest-poverty schools 

increased during this period, the growth in Title I funds basically kept pace with the growth 

in the number of low-income students served in these schools. 
Chapter II 14 

TARGETING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REVENUES TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Most federal programs target resources to school districts and schools based on some indicator of need, 

often poverty. Similarly, most states use funding formulas that incorporate poverty measures and other 

need indicators in the distribution of state aid to local school districts. 

A comparison of the distribution of all federal, state, and local revenues indicated that 

federal education funds were more targeted to high-poverty districts than were local 

and state funds. 18

In 2004–05, districts in the 

highest poverty quartile, 

which served 49 percent of 

the nation’s poor school-age 

children and 25 percent of 

all school-age children, 

received 38 percent of all 

federal funds, 26 percent of 

state revenues, and 

15 percent of local revenues 

(see Exhibit 3). In contrast, 

districts in the lowest 

poverty quartile, which 

served 7 percent of the 

nation’s poor school-age 

children and 25 percent of 

all school-age children, 

received just 12 percent of 

all federal funds, 22 percent 

of state funds, and 

37 percent of local funds.

Local revenues for 

education, drawn largely 

from property taxes, were 

the most strongly tilted in 

favor of the lowest-poverty 

districts, while state 

revenues were slightly more 

likely to go to highestpoverty districts. The state 

revenues compensated 

partially but not fully for 

 

18 Using Census estimates of the number and percentage of poor school-age children, this study ranked, from the highest 

to lowest, all school districts in the nation according to their percentage of poor children. The analysis then divided the 

districts into four quartiles based on the percentage of all children (in total enrollment) they served (i.e., such that each 

quartile included districts serving 25 percent of the school-age children in the United States attending public schools). 

Exhibit 3 

Share of Federal, State, and Local Revenues Received 

by Districts in the Highest and Lowest Poverty 

Quartiles, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Districts in the highest poverty quartile received 

38 percent of federal revenues, 26 percent of state revenues, and 

15 percent of local revenues. 

Source: NCES, Common Core of Data, School District Finance Survey (F-33) 

(n=6,328 districts in the two poverty quartiles). 
Chapter II 15 

funding disparities related to differences in local property tax bases, and when state and local revenues 

are combined, the share going to the highest-poverty districts (21 percent) was less than their share of all 

school-age children (25 percent).

Similarly, the addition of federal revenues, which were more targeted to high-poverty districts, did not 

fully counteract the state and local funding advantage enjoyed by the lowest-poverty districts; when all 

three funding sources are combined, the share of total education funding that went to the 

highest-poverty districts (22 percent) was less than their share of school-age children, while districts in 

the lowest poverty quartile received 28 percent of total education funding for school districts. 

Although federal programs, and to a lesser degree state school funding programs, 

provided more funds in the highest-poverty districts, these districts still had less 

funding per child than the lowest-poverty districts. 

While the highest-poverty districts received more federal and state revenues per student, they received 

substantially lower revenues per student from local sources (see Exhibit 4). The highest-poverty districts 

received over three 

times more federal 

funding per student than 

the lowest-poverty 

districts ($1,449 vs. 

$388), and 38 percent 

more state funding per 

student ($5,478 vs. 

$3,973). However, the 

highest-poverty districts 

received less than half as 

much local revenue per 

student ($3,098 vs. 

$6,475). Thus, despite a 

higher level of federal 

and state support, the 

total revenue per student 

from all sources in the 

highest-poverty districts 

was 7 percent lower than 

for districts in the lowest 

poverty quartile 

($10,025 vs. $10,836). 

Within individual states, 

districts that were in the 

highest poverty quartile 

usually had higher total 

revenues per student 

than districts in the 

lowest poverty quartile 

(in 42 out of 49 states, 

see Exhibit B.1). This 

suggests that the lower 

Exhibit 4 

Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, 

by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Although federal revenues provided an additional 

$1,449 per student in the highest-poverty districts, compared with 

$388 per student in the lowest-poverty districts, the highest-poverty 

districts still received less in total revenues per student ($10,025) than 

the lowest-poverty districts ($10,836). 

Note: “Federal Revenues” include funds that school districts received from any 

federal source, including federal programs outside the U.S. Department of 

Education, such as the National School Lunch Program. 

Source: NCES, Common Core of Data, School District Finance Survey (F-33), 

(n=13,754 districts). 
Chapter II 16 

average total revenues for districts in the highest poverty quartile is driven by differences across states 

rather than differences within states. 

The average amount of federal revenues per student across all districts was $849. Exhibit B.2 shows the 

average federal, state, and local revenues per student in each state. 

The share of total revenues provided through federal programs was over three times 

higher in the highest-poverty districts than in the lowest-poverty districts. 

In the highest poverty quartile, federal revenues accounted for about 14 percent of total district 

revenues, which is almost double the 8 percent national average for all districts. On the other hand, 

federal revenues accounted for only 4 percent of total revenues for districts in the lowest poverty quartile 

(see Exhibit 5). Title I, the largest federal elementary and secondary program serving elementary and 

secondary education, accounted for 30 percent of total federal revenues received by school districts. The 

share of total district revenues provided through Title I was also five times higher in the highest poverty 

quartile (5 percent) than in the lowest poverty quartile (1 percent). 

Exhibit 5 

Share of District Revenues Provided Through Title I and Through All Federal Funds, by 

District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: On average, federal funds accounted for 8 percent of total district revenues and 

Title I revenues accounted for 3 percent of total district revenues. 

Note (1): NCES has reported that federal revenues accounted for 9 percent of total district revenues in 

2004–05 (see http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_162.asp), which is slightly higher than the 

8 percent shown in Exhibit 5. The NLS study excluded certain categories of school districts (e.g., regional 

educational service agencies) from the analysis, which may account for this slight difference. 

Note (2): The largest sources of federal funding for school districts that are not included in this study are the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the National School Lunch Program. Each of these two programs 

accounts for 2 percent of total district revenues. 

Source: NCES, Common Core of Data, School District Finance Survey (F-33) (n=13,754 districts). 
Chapter II 17 

TARGETING OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS TO DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS

Many of the federal programs included in this study contain provisions that are intended to target funds 

to higher-poverty school districts, and to higher-poverty schools within districts. However, some of the 

programs are more targeted than others, and the patterns of targeting vary. As Chapter I shows, the 

federal programs vary in size, and provide funds to districts for different purposes. As is shown in the 

analysis below, the three formula grants under NCLB (Title I, Title II, and Title III) generally reach a 

higher proportion of districts than the competitive grants (e.g., Reading First, CSR), which are smaller in 

size and provide funds to a very small percentage of districts. This section provides further detail on the 

targeting of funds, and discusses findings at the district and school levels. 

Percentage of school districts receiving federal program funds 

Before looking at the distribution of funds across high- and low-poverty districts and schools, it is useful 

to know the total number of districts that actually received funds from each of these six federal programs 

and the number of students who were potentially served.

Nearly all school districts in the nation received funding from the Title I and Title II 

programs, while relatively few received funding from the competitive grant 

programs (Reading First and CSR) or from Section 1003 school improvement funds. 

In 2004–05, Title II funds went to 99 percent of all school districts (see Exhibit 6), up from 94 percent 

in 1997–98. Title I funds went to 93 percent of all school districts, about the same as in 

1997–98 (92 percent). Title I Section 1003(a) school improvement funds were allocated to 11 percent of 

all districts; these funds are intended to be targeted to districts with schools that have been identified for 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. 

Perkins Vocational Education funds went to about half of the nation’s school districts (51 percent). 

However, 16 percent of the nation’s school districts are elementary-only districts, which are not eligible 

to receive these funds. Limiting the analysis to only include districts with secondary students, the data 

show that Perkins funds went to 60 percent of the districts that had secondary students; the funded 

districts enrolled 76 percent of the nation’s secondary students. 
Chapter II 18 

Title III funds were 

allocated to 41 percent 

of all school districts but 

69 percent of school 

districts that had one or 

more LEP students. 

Districts receiving Title 

III funds enrolled 

87 percent of all LEP 

students. Overall, 

55 percent of school 

districts had one or more 

LEP students,19 but 

many of these districts 

enrolled only a small 

number of LEP 

students. Of the school 

districts that enrolled 

LEP students, 55 percent 

had 10 or more LEP 

students, and 46 percent 

enrolled between one 

and nine LEP students. 

The two competitive 

grant programs in this 

study, Reading First and 

CSR, each provided 

grants to 8 percent of all 

school districts. 

Districts receiving federal program funds tended to be larger than non-recipient 

districts, and thus enrolled a larger share of the nation’s students. 

For example, districts receiving Section 1003 funds accounted for 38 percent of the nation’s students, 

and only 11 percent of the nation’s school districts. Similarly, Reading First and CSR each went to 

districts enrolling over one-fourth of all students. 20 Perkins and Title III funds each went to districts 

enrolling about three-fourths of all students. 

 

19 This figure is likely to be an underestimate of the percentage of districts that have one or more LEP students. The 

analysis using CCD 2003–04 data indicated that 33 percent of school districts had no LEP students. However, 

11 percent of school districts did not provide information on their number of LEP students, which suggests that 

the percentage of school districts that had LEP students may be higher than the current estimate. 20 Using the alternative approach limiting the analysis to school districts that enrolled K–3 students for Reading First 

yielded similar results. 

Exhibit 6 

Percentage of Districts That Received Federal Program Funds 

and Percentage of Students Enrolled in These Districts, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-three percent of school districts received Title I, 

Part A, funds in 2004–05; these districts served 98 percent of students. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=13,815 districts). 
Chapter II 19 

Percentage of school districts receiving federal program funds by 

district poverty 

As discussed above, nearly all school districts in the nation received funds from Title I and Title II. 

However, for programs that go to a smaller proportion of the nation’s districts, there is more 

opportunity for variation by district poverty rate in the percentage of districts that receives these funds. 

Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR were much more likely to serve high-poverty 

districts than low-poverty districts. 

Section 1003 funds went to 

25 percent of districts in the 

highest poverty quartile and 

5 percent of districts in the 

lowest poverty quartile (see 

Exhibit 7). Similarly, 

Reading First and CSR went 

to 16 to 19 percent of all 

districts in the highest 

poverty quartile but only 

1 to 2 percent of districts in 

the lowest poverty quartile. 

Title I and Perkins 

Vocational Education also 

were more likely to serve 

high-poverty districts than 

low-poverty districts, but 

the difference was less 

pronounced because these 

two programs flowed to a 

higher proportion of 

districts at all poverty levels. 

For Title II, which served 

99 percent of all districts, it 

is not surprising that 

the percentage served did 

not vary by district poverty 

quartile. Title III funds were 

slightly more likely to go to 

districts in the lowest 

poverty quartile (47 percent) 

than to those in the highest 

poverty quartile (44 percent). 

Exhibit 7 

Percentage of Districts Receiving Federal Program Funds, 

in the Highest and Lowest District Poverty Quartiles, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-six (96) percent of districts in the highest poverty 

quartile received Title I funds in 2004–05. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=6,396 districts in the two poverty 

quartiles). 
Chapter II 20 

TARGETING OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS BY DISTRICT POVERTY QUARTILE 

Of the federal programs studied, Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR provided the 

largest shares of program funds to the highest-poverty districts. 

The districts in the highest poverty quartile, which enrolled 49 percent of the nation’s poor school-age 

children and 25 percent of all school-age children, received nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of the funds 

that states reserved for school improvement activities under Section 1003 of Title I (see Exhibit 8). 

Reading First and CSR, both competitive programs, also provided relatively large shares of their funding 

to the highest poverty quartile of districts (58 percent and 57 percent, respectively). 

Exhibit 8 

Distribution of Federal Program Funds, 

by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Districts in the highest poverty quartile received 52 percent of the 

Title I funds, while serving 49 percent of the nation’s poor children. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=13,815 districts including between 1,048 to 

13,653 districts that received various federal program funds). 
Chapter II 21 

For Title I, 52 percent of the funds went to the highest-poverty districts, slightly more than their share of 

poor children (49 percent). For Title II, Title III, and Perkins Vocational Education, the share of funds 

allocated to the highest poverty quartile (43 to 45 percent) was less than their share of poor children but 

greater than their share of all school-age children (25 percent). 

Conversely, the districts in the lowest poverty quartile received a very small share of the funds under 

Title I, Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR (3 to 6 percent) and a larger share of the funds under 

Title II, Title III, and Perkins (12 percent). 21

Federal funding per poor child in the highest- and lowest-poverty 

districts 

In the districts that received funding, Title I provided a higher level of funding per 

poor child in the highest-poverty districts than in the lowest-poverty districts, while 

the other federal programs provided a higher level of funding per poor child in the 

lowest-poverty districts. 

In 2004–05, the highest-poverty districts received an average of $1,579 in Title I funds per poor child, 

which was 26 percent higher than in the lowest-poverty districts ($1,256) (see Exhibit 9). Conversely, the 

other federal programs provided less funding per poor child to the highest-poverty districts than to the 

lowest-poverty districts. For example, the highest-poverty districts received $321 per poor child in 

Title II funds, 44 percent less than the lowest-poverty districts ($571). While several formula grants 

(e.g., Title I and Title II) allocated funds to a majority of low-poverty districts, the two competitive 

programs (Reading First and CSR) allocated funds to only a small percentage of low-poverty districts, 

but the low proportion of poor children in these districts resulted in a higher average allocation per poor 

child. 

It should be noted that when we examine Title I funding at the school level, a little later in this report (Exhibit 12), we 

find the opposite pattern as in the district level analysis: that is, the highest-poverty Title I schools receive a lower level of 

Title I funding per low-income student than do the lowest-poverty Title I schools. 

 

21 The district poverty quartiles were defined using Census population and poverty estimates for all school-age children 

(aged 5 to 17). Two of the programs in this study are focused on certain age groups; specifically, Perkins Vocational 

Education funding for school districts is intended to serve high school students, while the Reading First program is 

focused on grades K–3. We used the same poverty quartiles for all programs in this study in order to enable consistent 

comparisons across programs. Alternatively, poverty quartiles can be calculated using estimates for a particular set of 

grades, but this has only a small impact on the distribution of funds by poverty quartile. For example, we calculated 

alternative poverty quartiles using estimates of the numbers of children and poor children in grades 9–12; the 

distribution of Perkins funds among these alternative poverty quartiles appears slightly more targeted to higher-poverty 

districts compared with the distribution shown in the main analysis in Exhibit 8. Specifically, the share of Perkins funds 

going to each poverty quartile under the alternative analysis was (from highest poverty to lowest poverty) 46 percent, 

27 percent, 18 percent, and 9 percent, respectively, compared with 43 percent, 26 percent, 20 percent, and 12 percent, 

respectively, under the main analysis. The distribution of poor children in grades 9–12 under the alternative poverty 

quartiles was the same as for the main poverty quartile analysis (49 percent, 27 percent, 16 percent, and 7 percent, 

respectively). 
Chapter II 22 

Some of the programs in this study are focused on a subset of the school population—Reading First is 

focused on grades K–3, Perkins Vocational Education is focused on secondary school students, and 

Title III is focused on LEP students—and using all poor children as the denominator for calculating 

per-pupil funding may understate the level of funding that is actually being provided for the target 

population. Although the figures shown in Exhibit 9 present funding per poor child in order to use a 

consistent metric across programs, we can also calculate this measure using the subset of children that is 

relevant to these individual programs (see Exhibit B.6). 

For Reading First, if we calculate funding per poor child based only on children in grades K–3, the 

amount of Reading First funding per poor child appears more substantial ($651 in the highest-poverty 

districts and $1,543 in the lowest-poverty districts) than when we calculate per-pupil funding based on all 

poor children in the funded districts ($199 and $437 in the highest- and lowest-poverty districts, 

respectively). 

For Perkins Vocational Education, calculating funding per poor child based only on children in grades 

9 through 12 produces estimates of $275 and $503 in the highest- and lowest-poverty districts, 

respectively. 

Exhibit 9 

Federal Program Funding per Poor Child, 

for Districts in the Highest and Lowest Poverty Quartiles, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Of the districts that received funds, those in the highest poverty quartile received an 

average of $1,579 in Title I funding per poor child, compared with $1,256 in the lowest poverty quartile. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=480 to 6,327 districts receiving federal funds in the two poverty 

quartiles). 
Chapter II 23 

For Title III, an alternative way to examine per-pupil funding is to calculate funding per LEP student 

rather than funding per poor child. Title III funding per LEP student was $108 and $106 in the highestand lowest-poverty districts, respectively. 

TARGETING OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS BY SCHOOL POVERTY LEVEL 

For three of the programs in this study—Title I, Part A, Reading First, and CSR—a large proportion of 

the funds are allocated to individual schools, and so the study was able to examine the distribution of 

funds at the school level. All three programs have a goal of targeting funds to high-need schools. For 

Title I, school districts are required to distribute funds to schools in rank order of poverty consistent with 

Section 1113 of ESEA and §200.78 of the Title I regulations. The Title I within-district allocation provisions 

require that higher-poverty schools must be served before lower-poverty schools may be served, that higherpoverty schools receive at least as much Title I funding per low-income student as lower-poverty schools 

receive, and that districts that provide Title I funds to relatively low-poverty schools (those with fewer 

than 35 percent poor children) must ensure that each school receives a certain minimum level of funding 

(equivalent to 125 percent of the district’s total allocation per low-income student) in order to avoid 

dilution of the funding across too many schools. 

As competitive grant programs, Reading First and CSR include provisions designed to direct funding to 

schools with higher educational needs. For Reading First, school districts must distribute funds to 

schools that have the highest percentages or numbers of students in kindergarten through grade 3 who 

are reading below grade level and either are identified for school improvement under Title I or have 

high percentages or numbers of low-income students. For CSR, states competitively award grants to 

school districts on behalf of specific schools and must give priority to schools that have been identified 

for improvement. Even when these funds are not explicitly allocated to schools on the basis of poverty, 

a general correlation between school poverty and low achievement may result in these funds tending to 

flow to higher-poverty schools. 

It is important to note that when examining the targeting of federal program funds at the school 

level, average school allocations per low-income student appear much smaller than district 

allocations per poor student because a different poverty measure is used. The district-level 

analysis uses Census Bureau estimates of poor school-age children, while the school-level analysis uses 

counts of students eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program, which has a higher income 

threshold and thus includes roughly twice as many children. 22 For Title I, for example, the average 

district allocation in 2004–05 was $1,499 per Census poverty child but $796 per student eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunches. The average district allocation per free and reduced-price lunch student is 

higher than the average school allocation per free and reduced-price lunch student (see Exhibit 10) 

because districts retain some of the Title I funds for certain services and functions (potentially including 

supplemental educational services, districtwide preschool or after-school programs, and other activities 

that may be funded and managed at the district level) as well as for program administration.

 

22 The threshold income level for eligibility for the free or reduced-price lunch program is 185 percent of the threshold 

income level for the determination of whether a child lives in poverty. The term “low-income” refers to children eligible 

for the free or reduced-price lunch program, while “poor children” refers to children living in families whose income is 

below the federal poverty threshold. The analyses in this report use the percentage of low-income students to measure 

the school poverty level, while using the percentage of children living below the federal poverty threshold to measure 

district poverty levels. Because the school-level poverty measure (free and reduced-price lunch) includes roughly twice as 

many children as the Census poverty measure, the average allocation per ‘low-income student’ is considerably smaller in 

the school-level analyses than the average allocation per ‘poor child’ in the district-level analyses. The calculation of the 

district allocation per poor child is based on the districts that actually received funding. Similarly, the calculation of 

allocation per low-income student is based on the sample of schools that received funding. 
Chapter II 24 

School-level funding for Title I, Reading First, and CSR 

Title I provided funds to over half of the nation’s schools, while the two competitive 

grant programs, Reading First and CSR, had smaller appropriations and funded 

programs in a small percentage of schools. 

Unlike formula grants that generally reach a high proportion of districts and schools, competitive 

program funds are typically distributed to a smaller number of grantees. The two competitive grant 

programs included in this study, Reading First and CSR, provided grants to a very small percentage of 

the nation’s schools (2 percent and 1 percent, respectively), in contrast to the Title I, Part A, program 

which provided funds to over half of the nation’s schools (56 percent) (see Exhibit 10). In part, this 

difference reflects the much lower appropriation levels for the two competitive grant programs; 

FY 2004 appropriations were $1.024 billion for Reading First and $324 million for CSR, which amounts 

to 8 percent and 

2 percent, respectively, 

of the amount 

appropriated for Title I, 

Part A, during that same 

year ($12.342 billion). 

However, because the 

Reading First and CSR 

funds were allocated to 

an even 

smaller percentage of 

the schools (2 percent 

and 1 percent, 

respectively), they 

resulted in relatively 

large allocations per 

low-income student, 

considering the overall 

size of the programs, in 

schools that did receive 

these grant funds 

($366 for Reading First 

and $280 for CSR). 

Exhibit 10 

School-Level Funding for Title I, Reading First, and CSR, 

2004–05 

 

FY 2004 

Appropriations 

Percentage of All 

Schools 

Receiving Funds 

Average Allocation 

per Low-income 

Student 

Title I, Part A $12.342 billion 56% $606 

Reading First $1.024 billion 2% $343 

CSR $324 million 1% $280 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent of all schools received Title I funds in 

2004–05, and Title I schools received an average allocation of $606 per 

low-income student. 

Note: Reading First is intended to serve only students in grades K–3. Although 

Reading First schools comprised 2 percent of all schools, they accounted for 4 percent 

of elementary schools. In Reading First schools, the average allocation per low-income 

student in grades K–3 was $664. The $343 per low income student reported in the table 

includes students across all grade levels within a recipient school. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools, 413 Reading First 

schools, and 260 CSR schools).
Chapter II 25 

The two competitive grant programs, Reading First and CSR, targeted a larger share 

of funds to high-poverty schools than did Title I. 

High-poverty schools (i.e., schools with 50 percent or more low-income students) received a substantial 

majority of Reading First (96 percent) and CSR (83 percent) funds and about three-quarters (76 percent) 

of Title I funds, while serving 

about 63 percent of the 

nation’s low-income students 

(see Exhibit 11). The highestpoverty schools (i.e., those 

with 75 percent or more 

low-income students), which 

served 30 percent of 

low-income students, 

received 57 percent of 

Reading First school 

allocations, 50 percent of 

CSR school allocations, and 

38 percent of Title I school 

allocations. The lowestpoverty schools, which 

served 17 percent of 

low-income students, 

received a much smaller 

share of Title I, Reading 

First; and CSR funds (2 to 

6 percent).23

An analysis comparing the 

distribution of funded 

schools to the distribution of 

all schools shows that the 

majority of Reading First 

(95 percent), CSR 

(75 percent), and 

Title I (63 percent) programs 

were found in high-poverty 

schools. However, a 

relatively larger share of 

Title I programs (14 percent) 

appeared in the lowestpoverty schools, compared 

with Reading First 

(2 percent) and CSR (4 percent)(see Appendix Exhibit B.8). 

 

23 It is important to note that comparing shares of funds to shares of low-income students served hides the complexities 

of the actual distribution of funds and low-income students among schools that are actually designated as Title I schools 

and therefore actually receive the funds. That is, there are schools at all poverty levels that serve low-income students, 

but that for a variety of reasons are not designated to receive Title I funds. 

Exhibit 11 

Distribution of School-Level Funds for Title I, Reading First, 

and CSR, by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, the highest-poverty schools received 

38 percent of Title I funds allocated to the schools and served 30 percent 

of the low-income students. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,986 schools, including 8,716 

Title I schools, 456 Reading First schools, and 290 CSR schools).
Chapter II 26 

Average school allocation per low-income student 

The district-level analysis in the preceding section showed that the highest-poverty districts received 

more Title I funds per poor child than the lowest-poverty districts. At the school level, the allocations 

per low-income student show a different picture. 

While district-level analyses showed larger Title I allocations per poor child in the 

highest-poverty districts, at the school level, Title I allocations per low-income 

student were lower in higher-poverty schools than in lower-poverty schools. 

Title I average allocation per low-income student in the highest-poverty schools ($558) was 27 percent 

lower than in low-poverty schools ($763) and also well below the amounts received by the two 

medium-poverty groups of schools ($611 and $671) (see Exhibit 12). Similarly, Reading First allocations 

per low-income student were lower in the highest-poverty schools ($311) than in the second 

highest-poverty schools ($429). For CSR, the average allocation received by the highest-poverty schools 

($320) was not significantly different from that received by the second lowest-poverty schools ($259). 

Exhibit 12 

Average School Allocations per Low-income Student for Schools Receiving Title I, 

Reading First, and CSR Funds, by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: The highest-poverty schools received an average Title I allocation of $558 per low-income 

student and an average Reading First allocation of $311 per low-income student. 

Note: Average school allocations for CSR and Reading First in low-poverty schools (<50 percent) are not shown here 

due to small sample sizes.

* Indicates that the average allocation for this poverty category is significantly different from the other poverty 

categories (p < .05). 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools, 397 Reading First schools, and 252 CSR schools). 
Chapter II 27 

Within-district targeting for Title I, Reading First, and CSR 

The preceding analysis examined school allocations patterns for Title I, Reading First, and CSR across all 

high- and low-poverty schools in a nationally representative sample. That analysis found that 

higher-poverty schools tended to receive smaller allocations per low-income student, on average, than 

lower-poverty schools. But to what extent does this pattern of weak targeting result from individual 

districts providing smaller allocations to their higher-poverty schools or from the distribution of funds 

across districts? 

In order to take a closer look at how individual districts were allocating these federal program funds, the 

following analysis examines the targeting of Title I, Reading First, and CSR within district boundaries, 

using data on school allocations reported by 242 Title I districts, 33 Reading First districts, and 33 CSR 

districts that had two or more schools receiving these grants. 

Within-district analyses revealed that most districts provided either higher or similar 

Title I allocations per low-income student to their higher-poverty Title I schools 

relative to their lower-poverty Title I schools. 

Based on allocations data for 8,536 Title I schools in the sample of 242 districts, Title I schools with 

above-average poverty rates (compared with other Title I schools in their district) received an average 

Title I allocation of $634 per low-income student, 14 percent higher than the average allocation for 

Title I schools with below-average poverty rates for their district ($558). Slightly less than half of the 

districts (47 percent) provided larger allocations per low-income student to their higher-poverty 

Title I schools, 36 percent provided similar allocations in higher- and lower-poverty schools, and 

18 percent provided smaller allocations per low-income student to their higher-poverty Title I schools.24

Districts that provided larger allocations to their high-poverty Title I schools typically provided 

substantially more Title I funds to higher-poverty schools (32 percent more per low-income student, on 

average, compared with their lower-poverty schools). In districts that provided smaller allocations to 

their higher-poverty Title I schools, the differential was smaller (20 percent less per low-income student, 

on average). In other words, although it appears that some Title I districts may be violating the withindistrict targeting requirements by providing larger per-pupil allocations to lower-poverty schools, this 

problem appears to be small in scope and outweighed by the more prevalent district practice of 

allocating larger per-pupil amounts to higher-poverty schools within the district. 

Similarly, an examination of the correlations between school poverty rates and Title I allocations, in 

109 districts that had 10 or more Title I schools, found that 49 percent of the districts showed a positive 

relationship between Title I funds per low-income pupil and school poverty, and most of the remaining 

districts showed no statistically significant relationship (48 percent). 

This within-district analysis suggests that the earlier finding of a negative relationship between school 

poverty rates and Title I allocations per low-income pupil does not appear to reflect widespread district 

policies or practices that favor lower-poverty schools. To further explore the inconsistency between the 

national analysis and the within-district targeting analysis, the next section examines the distribution of 

funds to high- and low-poverty Title I schools across districts in different poverty quartiles. 

 

24 Title I schools with poverty rates above their district median for funded schools had an average poverty rate of 

69 percent, compared with 52 percent for schools below their district median. 
Chapter II 28 

Districts in the lowest poverty quartile concentrated their Title I funds on a relatively 

small proportion of their schools that while, being among the highest-poverty 

schools in these low-poverty districts, were actually relatively low-poverty schools 

when compared with the larger distribution of schools. 

Although districts in the lowest poverty quartile allocated their Title I funds to their highest-poverty 

schools, these schools had relatively low poverty rates compared with Title I schools in higher-poverty 

districts. For example, the average poverty rate for Title I schools was 21 percent in the lowest-poverty 

districts, compared with 72 percent in the highest-poverty districts (see Exhibit 13). Moreover, the 

lowest-poverty districts concentrated their funds on a smaller proportion of their schools, resulting in 

above-average allocations per low-income student in these schools. In the highest-poverty districts, 

82 percent of all schools received Title I funds, with an average school allocation of $547, but in the 

lowest-poverty districts, 37 percent of all schools received funds and the average school allocation was 

$910 (see Appendix C.10 for details on the average Title I school allocation per low-income student by 

school poverty level and district poverty quartile). 

Exhibit 13 

Allocations for Title I Schools, by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05

 Average Poverty Rate 

of Title I Schools 

Percentage of 

Schools Receiving 

Title I, Part A, Funds 

Average Allocation per 

Low-income Student 

Highest poverty quartile 72% 82% $547 

Second-highest poverty quartile 63% 59% $649 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 46% 42% $653 

Lowest poverty quartile 21% 37% $910 

Exhibit reads: In the highest-poverty districts, Title I schools had an average poverty rate of 72 percent, 

82 percent of all schools received Title I, Part A, funds in 2004–05, and Title I schools received an average 

Title I allocation of $547 per low-income student. 

Source: NLS-NCLB school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools). 

One explanation for the finding that low-poverty districts tended to concentrate their Title I funds on a 

relatively small proportion of their schools may be the “125 percent rule,” which is intended to 

discourage districts from spreading their Title I funds thinly across a large number of schools; this rule 

only applies to districts that provide Title I funds to schools with relatively low poverty rates. 

Specifically, the 125 percent rule requires that districts that allocate Title I funds to schools with poverty 

rates below 35 percent must ensure that each school’s Title I allocation is equivalent to at least 

125 percent of the district’s total allocation per low-income student. Districts with lower average 

poverty rates are more likely to serve low-poverty schools and thus are more likely to be subject to the 

125 percent rule, which may tend to result in higher funding levels in a smaller number of schools. 

In short, low-poverty Title I districts tended to fund schools with relatively lower poverty rates, 

to fund a smaller percentage of their schools, and to provide these schools with relatively large 

allocations per low-income pupil. In contrast, the highest-poverty Title I districts typically 

provided these funds to a large majority of their schools but provided each of these schools with 

smaller allocations per low-income student in comparison to the school funding levels provided 

in lower-poverty districts. 
Chapter II 29 

In contrast to Title I, districts receiving Reading First and CSR funds were more 

likely to give larger allocations per low-income student to their lower-poverty 

grantee schools than to higher-poverty schools. However, most of these “lowerpoverty” Reading First and CSR schools had relatively high poverty rates when 

compared with national averages. 

Unlike Title I, the Reading First and CSR programs do not have specific requirements about the relative 

size of school allocations within a district. Based on the subsample of 33 Reading First districts in the 

study, almost two-thirds (64 percent) provided smaller allocations per low-income student in 

higher-poverty schools than in their lower-poverty Reading First schools (see Exhibit 14). Schools 

above their district’s median poverty rate for Reading First schools received an average allocation of 

$314 per low-income student, 13 percent lower than for schools below the district median ($362). 

For CSR, 41 percent provided smaller allocations to higher-poverty CSR schools than to lower-poverty 

CSR schools, while 55 percent provided larger allocations to their higher-poverty CSR schools (based on 

a sample of 33 CSR districts). CSR schools above their district’s median poverty rate for CSR schools 

received an average allocation of $277 per low-income student, similar to the average allocation size for 

schools below the district median for CSR schools ($287). 

Beneath these averages lies considerable variation across districts. In districts that provided smaller 

allocations to their higher-poverty Reading First and CSR schools, the funding differential was 

20 percent for Reading First ($305 vs. $379) and 20 percent for CSR ($243 vs. $307) (see Appendix 

Exhibit B.9 ). In some individual districts, the differential was much larger; for example, one district that 

provided Reading First funds to seven elementary schools allocated $557 per low-income student to a 

school with a 90 percent poverty rate and $1,147 per low-income student to a school with a 55 percent 

poverty rate. 

However, it is important to note that school poverty rates were relatively high for most of the Reading First and CSR 

schools, including schools that were below their district’s median poverty rate for funded schools. Across the 33 Reading 

First districts in the sample, the higher-poverty Reading First schools had an average poverty rate of 

86 percent, compared with 75 percent for schools below their district median. Across the 33 CSR 

districts, the higher-poverty CSR schools had an average poverty rate of 86 percent, compared with 

74 percent for the lower-poverty CSR schools in these districts.
Chapter II 30 

CHANGES IN TITLE I TARGETING TO DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS, BETWEEN 

1997–98 AND 2004–05 

The reauthorizations of ESEA over the years have been designed in part to improve the way resources 

are targeted to poor children, especially through Title I, the largest of these federal programs. Since the 

passage of NCLB in 2001, Congress began funding two new formulas (Targeted Grant and Education 

Finance Incentive Grants) that were intended to increase the targeting of Title I funds to higher-poverty 

districts. The Targeted Grant formula uses a weighted formula to provide more funding per poor child 

in districts with larger percentages or numbers of poor children. The Education Finance Incentive 

Grant formula rewards states for additional “fiscal effort” in supporting education funding and for 

greater “fiscal equity” in the distribution of state and local education funds, and it also uses a weighted 

formula for suballocating the funds to districts within each state. In addition, substantial increases in 

overall funding have affected the amount of funding that districts and schools receive. This section 

explores how targeting has changed at the district and school level between 1997–98 and 2004–05. 

Exhibit 14 

Within-District Targeting for Title I, Reading First, and CSR, 2004–05 

Distribution of Sample Districts 

by Within-District Targeting Patterns 

Average School Allocation per Low-income 

Student, in Higher-Poverty and Lower-Poverty 

Schools 

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of the Title I districts that provided school allocations data reported 

larger allocations per low-income student in schools that were above the district’s median poverty rate for 

Title I schools; on average, these higher-poverty schools received $634 per low-income student. 

Note (1): “Higher-poverty schools” are those that are above their district’s median poverty rate for schools funded 

under each grant program, and “lower-poverty schools” are those that are below their district’s median poverty rate 

for funded schools. 

Note (2): Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB school allocations.
Chapter II 31 

Changes in district targeting 

Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the share of Title I funds received by the highestpoverty districts has shown little change. 

The highest-poverty 

districts, which served 

25 percent of the 

nation’s school-age 

children and 49 percent 

of the nation’s poor 

school-age children, 

received about half of 

the Title I funds in both 

2004–05 (52 percent) 

and 1997–98 

(50 percent). The 

proportion of children 

in the highest poverty 

quartile did not change 

(49 percent in both 

years). The percentage 

of funds received by 

districts in the lowest 

poverty quartile declined 

slightly, from 8 percent 

in 1997–98 to 6 percent 

in 2004–05 (see 

Exhibit 15). 

In recent years, Congress has designated an increasing share of total Title I funds to 

be allocated through the newer Targeted Grant and Education Finance Incentive 

Grant formulas. 

The share of Title I funds appropriated for the Targeted Grant and Incentive Grant formulas grew from 

18 percent of total Title I, Part A, funds in FY 2002 to 32 percent in FY 2004 and 36 percent in 

FY 2007. Meanwhile, the Basic formula declined from 85 percent of the funds in FY 1997 to 57 percent 

in FY 2004 and 53 percent in FY 2007. The share of funds allocated through the Concentration formula 

also declined slightly, from 15 percent in FY 1997 to 11 percent in FY 2004 and FY 2007. 

Exhibit 15 

Distribution of Title I Funds by District Poverty, 

Compared With the Distribution of Poor Children, 

1997–98 and 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, districts in the highest poverty quartile received 

52 percent of the Title I funds, slightly higher than their share of the nation’s 

poor school-age children (49 percent). 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=12,903 

districts); NLS-NCLB, state suballocations, 2004–05 (n=12,860 districts).
Chapter II 32 

The Concentration Grant, Targeted Grant, and Education Finance Incentive Grant 

formulas are all more targeted to the highest-poverty districts than are Basic Grants, 

but most funds continue to flow through the Basic Grants. 

Looking at the Department’s 

allocations to school districts 

for FY 2007, the share of 

funds going to the highestpoverty districts was 

58 percent under the 

Concentration formula, 

57 percent under the 

Incentive formula, 

56 percent under the 

Targeted formula, and 

47 percent under the Basic 

formula (see Exhibit 16). 

Because the majority of 

Title I funds still flowed 

through the Basic formula, 

the overall distribution of 

funds was roughly divided 

in half between the Basic 

formula and the other 

three formulas combined. 

Hold harmless provisions reduced the share of Concentration Grant funds allocated 

to the highest-poverty districts in FY 2007 but had a limited effect on targeting under 

the other three formulas. 

All four Title I formulas include a hold harmless provision that limits the amount of funds a district can 

lose in a single year due to a decline in its number of formula-eligible children or other changes in the 

data used to allocate these funds. The hold harmless percentage varies depending on the percentage of 

formula-eligible children in the district. For districts where the number of formula-eligible children is at 

least 30 percent of the district’s total enrollment, the district will receive at least 95 percent of its 

prior-year allocation. For districts with between 15 and 30 percent formula-eligible children, the hold 

harmless percentage is 90 percent, and for districts with less than 15 percent formula-eligible children, 

the hold harmless percentage is 85 percent. In addition, the Concentration Grant formula includes a 

Exhibit 16 

Share of Title I Funds Allocated to Highest- and LowestPoverty Districts Under Each Title I Formula in FY 2007 

Exhibit reads: Based on the Department’s allocations to school districts 

for FY 2007, the share of funds flowing to the highest poverty quartile of 

districts under the Basic Grant formula was 47 percent. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service (n=14,027 districts).
Chapter II 33 

provision that continues to allocate funds to districts that no longer meet the Concentration Grant 

eligibility criteria, for four years after the district loses eligibility [Section 1122(c)(2)]. This provision was 

added to the Concentration formula to address concerns about the “cliff effect” inherent in this formula 

(because that formula has much higher eligibility thresholds than the other three formulas,25 and districts 

close to the thresholds could experience large fluctuations in their allocations as they move in and out of 

eligibility). 

Looking at allocations calculated with and without the hold harmless provisions, the share of 

Concentration Grant funds actually allocated to the highest-poverty districts, with the hold harmless 

provision, was 58.5 percent in FY 2007, compared with 60.0 percent without the hold harmless 

provision. For Basic Grants, the share of funds allocated to the highest-poverty districts was slightly 

higher when calculated with the hold harmless (46.7 percent, vs. 46.4 percent without the hold harmless). 

Similar patterns were found for Targeted Grants (56.1 percent vs. 56.0 percent) and Education Finance 

Incentive Grants (57.3 percent vs. 57.1 percent). 

To take a closer look at the relative allocations produced by each formula, the Department’s Budget 

Service ran simulations of school district allocations using the same funding level for each formula and 

without using the hold-harmless provisions. The simulations used formula data for FY 2004 (i.e., 

numbers of eligible students, state per-student expenditures), and enabled examination of the “pure” 

effects of each formula on per-student funding. 

These formula simulations show that although the Education Finance Incentive Grant and Targeted 

Grant formulas each allocated a similar share of the funds to the highest poverty quartile of districts (as 

shown in Exhibit 16), the Incentive Grant formula provided much larger per-pupil grants to some 

moderate-poverty districts than to other districts with higher poverty rates. For example, East St. Louis, 

Ill. (40 percent poverty), an extremely impoverished suburb of St. Louis, Mo. (26 percent poverty), 

would receive 41 percent less per low-income student than St. Louis under the Incentive formula even 

though it would receive larger allocations under the Targeted, Concentration, and Basic formulas (see 

Exhibit 17). 

High-poverty school districts in states such as Illinois, New York, and California tend to fare poorly 

under the Incentive formula, relative to the Targeted formula, while Iowa and Kansas benefit the most 

from the Incentive formula. For example, based on the simulations shown in Exhibit 17, New York 

City (27 percent poverty) would receive 20 percent less under the Incentive formula than under the 

Targeted formula, and Oakland, Calif. (22 percent poverty) would receive 13 percent less. In contrast, 

Wichita, Kan. (13 percent poverty) would receive 66 percent more under the Incentive formula than 

under the Targeted formula, and Des Moines, Iowa (11 percent poverty) would receive 63 percent more. 

As a result, Wichita, whose poverty rate was half as high as New York’s, would receive 28 percent more 

in Incentive Grants per low-income student than New York even though it would receive less than New 

York under the other three formulas. 

 

25 The eligibility thresholds for each formula are shown in Exhibit 2. The percentage of districts receiving funding under 

each of the four formulas in FY 2007 was 91 percent for Basic Grants, 83 percent for Targeted Grants, 83 percent for 

Incentive Grants, and 47 percent for Concentration Grants. 
Chapter II 34 

Exhibit 17 

Allocation per Low-income Student Under Each Title I Formula 

in Selected School Districts, Based on Simulations Using the Same Funding Level 

for Each Formula ($1.97 Billion) and No Hold Harmless Provisions

Poverty 

Rate 

Number of 

Poor 

Children 

Basic 

Grant 

Concentration 

Grant 

Targeted 

Grant 

Incentive 

Grant 

Difference Between 

Incentive Grant and 

Targeted Grant 

St. Louis, Mo. 26% 16,483 $244 $317 $302 $416 +38% 

East St. Louis, Ill. 40% 4,500 $286 $372 $331 $246 -26% 

 

Wichita, Kan. 13% 7,673 $290 $377 $307 $510 +66% 

New York, N.Y. 27% 373,901 $321 $417 $497 $398 -20% 

Des Moines, Iowa 11% 3,910 $260 $0 $244 $397 +63% 

Oakland, Calif. 22% 16,289 $246 $320 $305 $265 -13% 

Exhibit reads: If the same amount of Title I funds were allocated through each of the four 

Title I formulas and no hold harmless provisions were applied, St. Louis, Mo., which has a poverty rate 

of 26 percent, would receive a Basic Grant of $244 per low-income student, a Concentration Grant of 

$317, a Targeted Grant of $302, and an Incentive Grant of $416. 

Note: Formula data used in these simulations are the same as those used for FY 2004 allocations, and the funding 

level used ($1,969,843,000) is the same as the actual FY 2004 funding for Incentive Grants and Targeted Grants. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service. 

State minimum allocation provisions provide some low-poverty states with very 

large allocations per low-income student, but this provision has a relatively small 

effect on allocations for other states and districts. 

Based on actual Budget Service allocations for FY 2007, states that gain under the state minimum 

provisions received an average allocation $1,858 per formula child, compared with $1,371 in states that 

lose under the state minimum provisions. The state minimum provisions moved a total of $52 million in 

FY 2007 to 11 small states from the other 41 states. This amounted to 0.4 percent of the total 

Title I allocations for that year. Seven states gained between 21–30 percent from application of the state 

minimum provision. Four other states had smaller gains (from 2 percent to 8 percent). The other 

41 states each lost 0.4 percent of their funds when the state minimum provision was applied. 

The state per-pupil expenditure (SPPE) factor, a proxy for adjusting for differences 

among states in the cost of education, moves a larger amount of funds between the 

states. 

States that gain under the SPPE factor received an average allocation of $1,616 per formula child, 

compared with $1,246 in states that lose under the SPPE factor. The SPPE factor moved a total of 

$874 million in FY 2007 to 27 states from the other 25 states. This amounted to 7 percent of the total 

Title I allocations for that year. Thirteen states gained between 20–30 percent from application of the 

SPPE factor. Thirteen other states had smaller gains (between 0–18 percent). Puerto Rico lost 

20 percent from application of the SPPE factor. Thirteen states lost between 11–16 percent of their 

funds. The remaining 12 states lost 2–9 percent of their funds when the SPPE factor was applied. (See 

Exhibits B.10 and B.11 for state-by-state tables on Title I allocations before and after the application of 

the SPPE factor, hold harmless, and state minimum provisions.) 
Chapter II 35 

Growth in Title I funding per poor child over time 

As shown in Exhibit 15, the share of Title I funds allocated to districts by poverty quartile appears to 

have changed little between 1997–98 and 2004–05. However, there has been a substantial overall growth 

in the Title I appropriations during this period of time, and most of this growth has resulted in 

considerable increases in the amount of Title I funds per poor child in all but the districts in the lowest 

poverty quartile. 

Title I funding per poor child increased substantially (by 42 percent after adjusting 

for inflation) between 1997–98 and 2004–05. 

Across all districts that received Title I funds, the average funding per poor child, expressed in constant 

2004–05 dollars, rose from $1,059 in 1997–98 to $1,499 in 2004–05, an increase of 42 percent (adjusted 

for inflation). For the 

highest-poverty 

districts, Title I funds 

rose from $1,044 per 

poor child in 1997–98 

to $1,579 in 2004–05, a 

51 percent increase. 

Large increases also 

occurred for districts in 

the middle two poverty 

quartiles. For the 

lowest-poverty districts, 

these funds increased 

by only 5 percent from 

$1,194 to $1,256 per 

poor child (see 

Exhibit 18 and 

Appendix 

Exhibit B.16). 

Exhibit 18 

Title I Funding per Poor Child, 

by District Poverty Quartile, 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

Exhibit reads: Across all districts, the average amount of Title I funding per 

poor child, expressed in constant 2004–05 dollars, increased from $1,059 in 

1997–98 to $1,499 in 2004–05. 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding (1997–98) 

(n=12,903 districts); NLS-NCLB, state suballocations, 2004–05 (n=12,856 districts). 
Chapter II 36 

In 2004–05, the highest-poverty districts received more Title I funds per poor child than did the lowestpoverty districts, a change from 1997–98 when the lowest-poverty districts received a larger average 

allocation per poor child. In 2004–05, the highest-poverty districts received Title I allocations per poor 

child ($1,579) that were 26 percent higher than those received by the lowest-poverty district ($1,256). In 

contrast, in 1997–98 the highest-poverty districts received allocations per poor child that were 13 percent 

lower ($1,044 vs. $1,194). This change over time resulted from a significant increase in Title I funds being 

allocated to districts in the highest poverty quartile compared with the lowest poverty quartile (57 and 

13 percent, respectively), while the overall growth in the number of poor children differed slightly 

between the highest and the lowest poverty quartiles (4 and 7 percent, respectively) (see Exhibit 19). 

The increase in funding for the highest poverty quartile (57 percent) was higher than the average across 

all districts (51 percent) and also higher than the increases for the middle two poverty quartiles 

(52 percent and 45 percent, respectively), but the lowest poverty quartile received a much smaller 

increase in funding (13 percent). 

Exhibit 19 

Percentage Increase in Title I Funds and in Numbers of Poor 

Children, by District Poverty Quartile, 1997–98 to 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the highest-poverty districts 

received a 57 percent increase in Title I funds (adjusted for inflation), while their 

number of poor children grew by 4 percent. 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding (1997–98) 

(n=12,903 districts); NLS-NCLB, state suballocations, 2004–05 (n=13,815 districts). 
Chapter II 37 

Change in percentage of schools receiving Title I funds, 2000–01 to 2004–05 

The percentage of schools receiving Title I funds has remained relatively stable over the 

past five years. 

As reported in Exhibit 10 earlier in this 

chapter, based on data collected as part of 

the NLS study, 56 percent of the nation’s 

public schools received Title I funding in 

2004–05. In order to examine change 

over time in the percentage of schools 

that receive Title I funds, we use 

historical data from the Common Core of 

Data (CCD) compiled by the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

for 2000–01 through 2004–05. Based on 

the CCD data. the percentage of schools 

receiving Title I funds fluctuated within a 

fairly narrow range (from 54 to 

57 percent) during this period (see 

Exhibit 20), similar to the NLS study 

finding of 56 percent for 2004–05. 

Exhibit 20 

Percentage of Schools Receiving Title I Funds, 

2000–01 to 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2000–01, 57 percent of all schools 

received Title I funds, according to data from the NCES 

Common Core of Data. 

Sources: NCES Common Core of Data: Public School Universe 

Survey Data, 2000–01 to 2004–05 (n=77,346 to 96,841). 
Chapter II 38 

Based on the NCES Common Core of Data, the percentage of the highest-poverty 

schools that received Title I funding has declined slightly from 

2000–01 to 2004–05. 

In 2004–05, the percentage of the highest-poverty schools that received Title I funding was 88 percent 

based on the CCD data, slightly lower than the preceding years (90 to 91 percent from 2000–01 to 2003–

04), and also lower than the NLS finding of 93 percent (see Exhibit 21). For the lowest-poverty schools, 

the percentage that received Title I funds in 2004–05 based on the CCD data was 34 percent, slightly 

lower than in 2000–01 (37 percent), but higher than the NLS finding of 23 percent.26 A closer 

comparison of the CCD and NLS data sources indicated some discrepancies in how individual schools 

were classified in terms of Title I status and school poverty level, and they also included different 

(although overlapping) samples of schools. See Appendix D for a more detailed discussion of 

differences between these two datasets. 

Exhibit 21 

Percentage of Highest-Poverty and Lowest-Poverty Schools 

Receiving Title I Funds, 2000–01 to 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2000–01, 91 percent of the highest-poverty schools (with 

poverty rates of 75 percent or higher) received Title I funds, according to data 

from the NCES Common Core of Data. 

Sources: NCES Common Core of Data: Public School Universe Survey Data (n=46,061 to 

52,639 schools, including 12,140 to 15,579 highest-poverty schools, and 33,921 to 

37,060 lowest-poverty schools) 

 

26 While data on students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were missing in some states (ranging from one state in 

2002 to seven states in 2000), a separate analysis using the sample of states with complete information yielded results 

that did not differ substantially from the analysis using universe data. 
Chapter II 39 

Change in Title I funding per low-income student by school poverty 

level, 1997–98 to 2004–05 

Title I funding per low-income student in the highest-poverty schools remained 

unchanged from 1997–98 to 2004–05 after adjusting for inflation. 

Although the district-level analysis 

found that Title I funding per 

poor child increased substantially 

in the highest-poverty districts 

from 1997–98 to 2004–05, 

changes in school-level allocations 

show a very different picture. In 

the highest-poverty schools, the 

average Title I allocation per 

low-income student was smaller 

than the funding levels received by 

lower-poverty schools, and after 

adjusting for inflation, the average 

allocation in the highest-poverty 

schools remained essentially 

unchanged from 1997–98 to 

2004–05. The average 

Title I allocation in the highestpoverty schools (75 percent or 

more poverty) was $558 per 

low-income student in 2004–05, 

compared with $563 in 1997–98, 

in constant 2004–05 dollars (see 

Exhibit 22).27 Medium-poverty 

schools, however, saw significant 

increases in their Title I funding: 

the average allocation per 

low-income student rose from 

$474 to $611 in schools with 

poverty rates between 50 and 

75 percent and from $484 to $671 

in schools with poverty rates 

between 35 and 50 percent. 

Although the lowest-poverty 

schools (with less than 35 percent 

poverty) saw a decline in allocation per low-income student, the change was not statistically significant. 

The average allocation per low-income student in the highest-poverty schools ($558) was 27 percent lower 

 

27 At the school level, Title I allocations per low-income student were calculated using the number of students eligible 

for the free and reduced-price school lunch program. This was a looser measure of poverty than the Census poverty 

measure typically used for district-level analyses and included roughly twice as many children as the Census poverty 

measure. As a result, the size of the average allocations per low-income student is considerably smaller in the schoollevel analyses than in the district-level analyses, which used Census poverty data.

Exhibit 22 

Title I Funding per Low-income Student, 

by School Poverty Level, 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

Exhibit reads: The highest-poverty schools received $558 per 

low-income student in 2004–05, compared with $563 in 1997–98 (in 

constant 2004–05 dollars). 

* Indicates that the 2004–05 amount is significantly different from 

1997–98 amount (p<.05). 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 

1997–98 (n=4,563 Title I schools); NLS-NCLB, school allocations, 

2004–05 (n=8,564 Title I schools). 
Chapter II 40 

than in low-poverty schools ($763) and also well below the allocations in the two medium-poverty groups 

of schools ($611 and $671). 

Title I funding per low-income student in the highest-poverty schools remained 

unchanged from 1997–98 to 2004–05 after adjusting for inflation. 

The total amount of Title I funds allocated to schools increased by 53 percent from 1997–98 to 2004–

05, after adjusting for inflation, and total allocations for the highest-poverty schools increased by 

25 percent. However, in the highest-poverty schools this increase in Title I funding basically kept pace 

with the increase in the number of low-income students (27 percent) enrolled in these schools. In 

contrast, growth in Title I funding in the two medium-poverty groups outpaced growth in the number of 

low-income students, thus explaining the increase in per-student funding seen in the medium-poverty 

groups across the years (see Exhibit 23 and Appendix Exhibit B.17).28

 

28 The percentage growth from 1997–98 to 2004–05 in the number of low-income children estimated at the school level 

was much greater than the percentage increase in the number of poor children estimated at the district level. More 

specifically, the number of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program in Title I schools rose by 

41 percent from 1997–98 to 2004–05, while the number of Census poverty children rose by 6 percent (see Exhibits B.16 

and B.17). These data suggest that there was a greater increase in numbers of low-income children who were above the 

official poverty line but below the income cutoff for the subsidized lunch program (which is 185 percent of the official 

poverty line). 

Exhibit 23 

Change in Title I Total School Allocations and Number 

of Low-income Students, by School Poverty Level, 

1997–98 to 2004–05

School Poverty Level 

Percent Change 

in 

Title I Allocations 

Percent Change in 

Number of 

Low-income 

Students 

75% or more +25% +27% 

50%–<75% +107% +61% 

35%–<50% +184% +105% 

Less than 35% -42% -31% 

All Title I schools +53% +41% 

Exhibit reads: Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, total Title I allocation 

increased by 25 percent, while the percentage of low-income students 

increased by 27 percent. 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 

1997–98 (n=4,563 Title I schools); NLS-NCLB, school allocations, 

2004–05 (n=8,564 Title I schools). 
Chapter II 41 

Summary of key findings on Title I targeting, 1997–98 to 2004–05 

Since the passage of NCLB, Congress has directed an increasing share of Title I appropriations through 

the newest Title I funding formulas, Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants, in an 

effort to target a greater share of the funds to the highest-poverty districts and schools. From 1997–98 

to 2004–05, the highest-poverty districts did receive a substantial increase in their Title I allocations, after 

adjusting for inflation (57 percent), compared with smaller increases in the other three poverty quartiles 

(52 percent, 45 percent, and 13 percent, respectively). However, the share of total Title I funds that went 

to the highest-poverty districts increased only slightly (from 50 to 52 percent). In terms of allocations 

per poor child, the highest-poverty districts received more in 2004–05 ($1,579) than the lowest-poverty 

districts ($1,256). 

At the school level, however, Title I funds appeared considerably less well targeted. The highest-poverty 

schools received smaller Title I allocations per low-income student ($558) compared with the lowestpoverty schools ($763) as well as the middle two poverty categories ($611 and $671). From 1997–98 to 

2004–05, the highest-poverty schools saw essentially no change in their average allocation per 

low-income student, despite a 53 percent increase in Title I appropriations, while the middle-poverty 

groups saw substantial increases and the lowest-poverty schools saw a decline. Within individual 

districts, the data indicate that most districts are complying with Title I targeting requirements: on 

average, the higher-poverty Title I schools in a district received larger Title I allocations per low-income 

child compared with lower-poverty Title I schools in the same district. 

These findings raise two important policy questions: 1) Why do the highest-poverty schools receive less 

Title I funding per low-income student than low-poverty schools, and 2) why did funding per 

low-income student remain unchanged in the highest-poverty schools while increasing in middle-poverty 

schools? 

The answer to the first question is that low-poverty Title I schools are typically located in low-poverty 

districts that are able to concentrate their Title I funds on a small number of their schools, while the 

highest-poverty schools tend to be located in high-poverty districts that have many high-poverty, 

high-need schools. In other words, it is the two-stage funding process, in which funds go first to 

districts, then are suballocated to schools within each district, that result in low-poverty schools getting 

more funding than high-poverty schools that are located in other districts. The shift to greater use of the 

Targeted and Incentive Grants formulas to allocate Title I funds to school districts has not resolved the 

school-level funding disparities that result from this two-stage allocation process. 

But even in the absence of an increase in targeting for the highest-poverty schools, shouldn’t they have 

at least received more funds due to the increase in appropriations during this period? The 

highest-poverty schools did see a 25 percent increase in their total Title I funds during this period, but 

the growth in funding basically kept pace with the growth in the number of low-income students served 

in these schools (27 percent). In contrast, in the middle two poverty groups of schools, the growth in 

Title I funds far exceeded the increase in the number of low-income students (see Exhibit B.17). 

Another factor that may affect school-level targeting is the share of Title I funds that districts suballocate 

to individual schools. NCLB includes new requirements for district-level set-asides to provide support 

professional development, Title I school choice, and supplemental educational services. Analysis of 

district fiscal records indicates that there was indeed a decline in the share of Title I funds allocated to 

the school level (74 percent in 2004–05, down from 83 percent in 1997–98 in the previous SERFF study) 

(see Chapter III, pages 63-64). It is possible, although by no means certain, that district-managed 

services may disproportionately benefit higher-poverty schools to the extent that they are used for 
Chapter II 42 

services in schools that have been identified for improvement, which tend to have above-average poverty 

rates. More information is needed on how services provided through funds retained at the district level 

are directed to students and teachers in different schools within the district.

ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS BY URBANICITY 

This section examines the extent to which federal funds are distributed among urban, suburban, and 

rural districts and schools.29 The discussion first focuses on the distribution of the federal program funds 

at the district level, by urbanicity category, followed by a more detailed discussion of the three 

discretionary grant programs in this study (Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR). We then examine the 

distribution of school-level allocations by urbanicity under Title I, Reading First, and CSR.30

Percentage of districts receiving funds, by urbanicity 

Urban districts were more likely to receive funding from federal education programs 

than were suburban and rural school districts. 

Almost all districts received Title I and Title II funding, so the percentage of districts receiving these 

funds did not vary significantly by urbanicity. For the other programs studied, however, the percentage 

of urban districts that received funds from Section 1003, Reading First, CSR, Title III, and Perkins was 

significantly larger than for suburban and rural districts. For example, 85 percent of urban districts 

received Title III funds, compared with 50 percent of suburban districts and 27 percent of rural districts 

(see Exhibit 24). Differences by urbanicity were proportionately greater in the smaller, discretionary 

programs. For example, urban districts were about four times as likely to receive Section 1003 funds 

(40 percent) compared with suburban and rural districts (11 percent and 8 percent, respectively); Reading 

First and CSR showed similar patterns. 

Exhibit 24 

Percentage of Districts Receiving Federal Funds, by District Urbanicity, 2004–05

Federal Program Urban Suburban Rural 

Title I 98% 93% 93% 

Section 1003 40% 11% 8% 

Reading First 27% 6% 8% 

CSR 31% 6% 6% 

Title II 99% 100% 99% 

Title III 85% 50% 27% 

Perkins 69% 46% 52% 

Exhibit reads: Title I funds went to 98 percent of urban districts. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=13,773 districts). 

 

29 The classifications of urban, suburban, and rural school districts followed the Metropolitan Status Code (MSC) 

definitions developed by the National Center of Education Statistics. See Appendix A for details on urbanicity 

classification. 

30 As stated previously, the school-level analysis was limited to Title I, CSR, and Reading First. For the other three 

programs in this study, districts do not necessarily allocate the funds to individual schools, and school allocations data 

were not readily available for these programs in most districts. 
Chapter II 43 

Distribution of federal funds by urbanicity category 

Urban school districts had more poor children and received a larger share of federal 

funds than suburban or rural districts. 

Exhibit 25 

Distribution of Federal Program Funds, by District Urbanicity, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, urban districts received 48 percent of the Title I funds, more 

than their share of poor school-age children (43 percent). 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=13,731 districts).

The distribution of funds by urbanicity varied across programs. Urban school districts received a 

relatively large share of funds for Title I, Section 1003, Reading First, CSR, and Title III (46 percent to 

51 percent) compared with their share of poor children (43 percent) (see Exhibit 25). For Title II and 

Perkins, funding for urban districts (41 to 42 percent) was similar to their share of poor children 

(43 percent). Suburban districts received 44 percent of Title III funds, and received the smallest share of 

funds under Reading First and CSR (29 to 31 percent); their share of funds under the other three 

programs ranged from 33 and 39 percent, and they served 37 percent of poor children. Rural districts 

received a relatively small share of funds under Title III and Section 1003 (6 percent and 14 percent, 

respectively), but their share of funds under the other five programs (19 to 23 percent) was similar to 

their share of poor children (20 percent). 
Chapter II 44 

Average allocation per poor child, by district urbanicity 

Urban districts received the most funding per poor child under Title I, while rural 

districts received larger allocations per poor child under the three discretionary 

grant programs (Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR). 

In 2004–05, urban districts received an average of $1,699 in Title I funding per poor child, compared 

with $1,452 for rural districts, and $1,381 for suburban districts (see Exhibit 26). All districts, regardless 

of urbanicity, received a similar level of funding per poor child for Title II and Perkins. However, 

funding per poor child for a rural district that received Reading First funds was $495, compared with 

only $194 for an urban district. Similarly, CSR provided $218 per poor child to rural districts—over 

three times higher than for urban districts ($64 per poor child). Section 1003 also provided slightly more 

funds to rural districts ($120 per poor child) than to urban districts ($77). 

Exhibit 26 

Average District Allocation per Poor Child, by District Urbanicity, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Urban districts received an average Title I allocation of $1,699 per poor child, while rural 

districts received $1,452 per poor child. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=13,773 districts, including 1,048 to 13,653 districts receiving federal 

funds).
Chapter II 45 

Funding patterns under discretionary grant programs by district 

urbanicity 

For each of the three discretionary programs (Section 1003, Reading First, and CSR), urban districts 

received smaller allocations per poor child, on average, than did rural and suburban districts (see 

Exhibit 27). For Section 1003, for example, the average allocation per poor child was $77 in urban 

districts, compared with $94 in suburban districts and $120 in rural districts; the differences were more 

striking for Reading First and CSR. This finding may seem surprising given the earlier finding that urban 

districts received a share of funding under each of these programs (46 to 51 percent) that was greater 

than their share of all poor children (43 percent). 

The explanation lies in the different percentages of each group of districts that received these 

discretionary grants: in all three cases, urban districts were much more likely than suburban and rural 

districts to receive a Section 1003, Reading First, or CSR grant, so their funds were spread across a larger 

set of districts (and students). More specifically, over one-fourth of urban districts received a grant 

under Section 1003, Reading First, or CSR (40 percent, 27 percent, and 31 percent, respectively, 

compared with 6 to 11 percent of suburban districts and 6 to 8 percent of rural districts). Although 

suburban and rural districts were less likely to receive one of these discretionary grants, those that did 

receive funding received relatively large amounts of per-pupil funding. 

Exhibit 27 

Allocations for Urban, Suburban, and Rural Districts 

Under Discretionary Grant Programs, 2004–05 

 Urban Suburban Rural 

Average allocation per poor child

Section 1003 $77 $94 $120 

Reading First $194 $299 $495 

CSR $64 $100 $218 

Percent of districts receiving grants

Section 1003 40% 11% 8% 

Reading First 27% 6% 8% 

CSR 31% 6% 6% 

Share of total grants1 

Section 1003 50% 36% 14% 

Reading First 46% 31% 23% 

CSR 51% 29% 21% 

Share of nation’s school-age children

All children 30% 53% 17% 

Poor children 43% 37% 20% 

Exhibit reads: Urban districts that received a grant under Section 1003 received 

an average grant amount of $77 per poor child, while suburban grantees received 

$94 per poor child and rural grantees received $120 per poor child. 

Note(1): Row totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district allocations (n=1,567 districts with Section 1003 funds, 

1,108 districts with Reading First funds, and 1,040 districts with CSR funds.
Chapter II 46 

Allocation of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Funds by school 

urbanicity 

For Title I, Reading First, and CSR, school-level allocations data can be used to examine funding 

patterns by school urbanicity. 

Like urban districts, urban schools received a larger share of federal funds under 

Title I, Reading First, and CSR than did suburban and rural schools. 

Urban schools received 44 percent of Title I school allocations, slightly more than their share of the 

nation’s low-income students (41 percent). The share of Title I funds going to rural schools was the 

same as their share 

of low-income 

students 

(18 percent), while 

suburban schools 

received a share of 

Title I funds 

(38 percent) that 

was less than their 

share of low-income 

students 

(41 percent). 

Reading First and 

CSR both had larger 

proportions of their 

funding allocated to 

urban schools 

(62 percent and 

61 percent, 

respectively). Both 

suburban and rural 

schools received 

shares of Reading 

First and CSR funds 

that were smaller 

than their shares of 

all low-income 

students. 

Looking at the distribution of funded schools by urbanicity shows similar patterns: the distribution of 

Title I schools by urbanicity is fairly similar to the distribution of all schools, while Reading First and 

CSR programs are proportionately more concentrated in urban schools and less likely to be found in 

suburban and rural schools (see Appendix Exhibit B.12). 

Exhibit 28 

Distribution of School-Level Funds for Title I, Reading First, 

and CSR, by School Urbanicity, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Urban schools received 44 percent of Title I school allocations and 

served 41 percent of low-income students. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,986 schools, including 8,716 Title I schools, 

456 Reading First schools, and 290 CSR schools). 
Chapter II 47 

Although rural schools were just as likely as urban schools to receive Title I funds (both at 59 percent), 

the rural schools received a higher average allocation per low-income student ($679) than urban schools 

($589) as well as suburban schools ($593) (see Exhibit 29.) Urban and suburban schools received similar 

amounts of Reading First and CSR funds per low-income student. 

Exhibit 29 

Average School Allocation per Low-income Student 

for Title I, Reading First, and CSR, by Urbanicity, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Urban schools received an average Title I allocation of 

$589 per low-income student, compared with $679 in rural schools. 

* Indicates that the average school allocation received by rural schools is 

significantly different from that received by urban and suburban schools (p<.05). 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools, 344 Reading 

First schools, and 256 CSR schools). Results for rural schools that received 

Reading First or CSR funds are not shown due to small sample sizes. 
Chapter II 48 

ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS BY GRADE LEVEL 

Under NCLB, some programs are specifically focused on early grades. Historically, districts have often 

focused their Title I funds on their elementary schools, but changes to the within-district allocation 

provisions were made to encourage districts to allocate Title I funds to high-poverty middle schools and 

high schools. As a K–3 program, Reading First provides funds exclusively to schools serving those 

grades. CSR funds, on the other hand, are not explicitly targeted to any specific grade level. 

Elementary schools received all Reading First funds, three-fourths of the 

Title I funds, and almost half of the CSR funds. 

For Title I, elementary schools 

received 76 percent of the school 

allocations, considerably more 

than their share of the nation’s 

low-income students (57 percent). 

Middle schools received 

14 percent of Title I funds and 

enrolled 20 percent of all 

low-income students, while high 

schools received 10 percent of 

Title I funds and enrolled 

23 percent of all low-income 

students (see Exhibit 30). 

The distribution of CSR funds was 

closer to the distribution of 

low-income students by school 

grade level: 48 percent of the 

funds went to elementary schools, 

34 percent to middle schools, and 

19 percent to high schools. 

All of the Reading First funds 

allocated to schools went to 

elementary schools, consistent 

with Reading First’s mandate to 

serve only students in grades K–3. 

A similar analysis comparing the distribution of funded schools by grade level is in Appendix 

Exhibit B.13. As expected, Reading First programs were all found in elementary schools. About threefourths of Title I programs were found in elementary schools. For CSR, about 50 percent of CSR 

programs were found in elementary schools, although middle schools accounted for another 36 percent 

of the funded schools. 31

 

31 As indicated earlier, school allocations data were more readily available for Title I, Reading First, and CSR than for the 

other programs, thereby permitting the analysis of the distribution of program funds by grade level. However, the study 

Exhibit 30 

Distribution of Federal Program Funds, Across Title I, 

Reading First, and CSR, by School Grade Level, 2004–05

Exhibit reads: Elementary schools received 76 percent of all 

Title I funds that were allocated to schools and served 57 percent of 

the low-income students. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,284 schools, including 8,393 

Title I schools, 457 Reading First schools, and 288 CSR schools). 
Chapter II 49 

Elementary schools received the largest share of Title I funds and the highest 

funding per low-income student. 

Based on schools that actually 

received funding, the average 

Title I allocation per low-income 

student was $664 in elementary 

schools (see Exhibit 31), about 

30 percent higher than in middle 

schools ($502) and more than 

40 percent higher than in high 

schools ($451). 

For CSR, the average allocation per 

low-income student was similar 

across grade levels, ranging from 

$291 in elementary schools to 

$249 in high schools. For Reading 

First, elementary schools received 

an average of $342 per low-income 

student. However, based on 

estimates of the portion of 

low-income students in grades K 

through 3 (the targeted grades) in 

schools with Reading First 

programs, the average school 

allocation per low-income student 

in grades K through 3 would 

amount to $662. 

 was able to estimate the distribution of federal appropriations for Perkins, Title II, and Title III based on grade level 

enrollment in recipient districts (see Appendix Exhibit B.14). 

Exhibit 31 

Average School Allocation per Low-income Student 

Under Title I, Reading First, and CSR, 

by School Grade Level, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, the average Title I allocation per 

low-income student in elementary schools was $664, compared with 

$451 in high schools. 

* Indicates that the Title I allocation for elementary schools is significantly 

different from middle and high schools (p<.05). 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools, 

411 Reading First schools, and 256 CSR schools). 
Chapter II 50 

Change in percentage of elementary and secondary schools receiving 

Title I funding, from 2000–01 to 2004–05 

Based on the NCES Common Core of Data, the percentage of elementary and 

secondary schools that received Title I funding remained relatively stable from 

2000–01 to 2004–05. 

In 2004–05, the NLS study 

found that 71 percent of 

elementary schools received 

Title I funds, compared 

with 32 percent of 

secondary schools 

(40 percent of middle 

schools and 27 percent of 

high schools). Based on 

CCD data, the proportion 

of elementary schools and 

secondary schools receiving 

these funds remained 

consistent from 2000–01 to 

2004–05 (fluctuating 

between 70 and 72 percent 

for elementary schools and 

between 38 and 39 for 

secondary schools) (see 

Exhibit 32). As noted in the 

previous section, the NLS 

and CCD datasets included 

different samples of schools 

and also contained some 

discrepancies in how 

individual schools were 

classified in terms of 

Title I status; see Appendix 

D for a more detailed discussion of this issue. 

Exhibit 32 

Percentage of Schools Receiving Title I Funds, 

by Grade Level, From 2000–01 to 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, 70 percent of elementary schools received 

Title I funds, similar to 71 percent in 2000–01. 

Source: Common Core of Data: Public School Universe Survey Data (n=72,083 to 

87,361schools, including 44,166 to 52,318 elementary schools and 27,917 to 

35,043 secondary schools). 
Chapter II 51 

In 2004–05, Title I elementary schools received an average allocation of $664 per low-income 

student, which was higher than the overall average ($606), and higher than for Title I secondary 

schools ($479). Across both years, the average school allocation increased by 8 percent (from $559 in 

1997–98 to $606 in 2004–05). The increase was higher in elementary schools (13 percent) than in 

secondary schools (9 percent) (see Exhibit 33). 

Exhibit 33 

Change in Title I Average School Allocation 

per Low-income Student in Elementary and Secondary Schools, 

1997–98 to 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, elementary schools received $664 Title I funds per 

low-income student, compared with $587 in 1997–98 (in constant 2004–05 dollars). 

* Indicates that the 2004–05 amount is significantly different from the 

1997–98 amount (p<.05). 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=4,563 Title I schools, 

including 3,588 elementary schools and 975 secondary schools); NLS-NCLB, school 

allocations, 2004–05 (n=8,564 Title I schools, including 6,102 elementary schools, 

2,142 secondary schools, and 320 other schools that were not classified under elementary or 

secondary schools, such as ungraded schools.) 
Chapter II 52 

ALLOCATION OF TITLE I FUNDS BY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STATUS

Under NCLB, every state must develop adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets for schools and 

districts. Schools that do not meet AYP for two or more consecutive years are “identified for 

improvement.” Title I schools identified for improvement are to receive technical assistance 

from their district and state, and also must develop improvement plans and set aside 10 percent 

of their Title I allocations for professional development. 

Schools identified for improvement were more likely to receive Title I funds than 

non-identified schools, and they received a share of Title I funds that was similar to 

their share of low-income students. 

In 2004–05, 84 percent of all schools identified for improvement received Title I funds, compared with 

54 percent of the schools not identified for improvement. The highest-poverty schools that were 

identified for improvement were much more likely (95 percent) to receive Title I funds than the lowestpoverty schools that were identified for improvement (19 percent). 

Schools identified for improvement accounted for 13 percent of all schools and 19 percent of 

Title I schools. Identified Title I schools received 27 percent of Title I funds, similar to their share of 

low-income students (24 percent). Non-identified schools received 73 percent of Title I funds, similar to 

their share of low-income students (76 percent) (see Exhibit 34). 

Exhibit 34 

Distribution of Title I Funds and Schools 

by School Improvement Status, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Title I schools identified for improvement received 27 percent of 

Title I funds while non-identified Title I schools received the remaining 73 percent. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,184 schools, including 8,245 Title I schools). 
Chapter II 53 

Schools identified for improvement received smaller Title I allocations per 

low-income student than schools that were not identified for improvement. 

Although identified schools were more likely than non-identified schools to receive Title I funds, they 

received less funding per low-income student ($556 and $624, respectively) (see Exhibit 35). Because 

identified schools generally had a higher poverty rate than non-identified schools (74 percent vs. 

54 percent), it is not surprising that they would receive a smaller allocation per low-income student. 

Likewise, elementary schools identified for improvement received less Title I funds per low-income 

student ($582) than non-identified elementary schools ($686). In contrast, middle schools identified for 

improvement received a higher allocation ($549) than non-identified middle schools ($461). The 

allocations per low-income student received by high schools were similar between identified ($467) and 

non-identified schools ($443). 

Exhibit 35 

Title I Funds per Low-income Student, 

by School Improvement Status and Grade Level, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Schools identified for improvement received $556 in 

Title I funds per low-income student, compared with $624 for 

non-identified schools. 

* Indicates that the Title I amounts for non-identified schools are significantly 

different from identified schools (p<.05). 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 schools, including 

3,045 identified schools, 5,088 non-identified schools, 1,845 identified 

elementary schools, 4,086 non-identified elementary schools, 733 identified 

middle schools, 485 non-identified middle schools, 377 identified high 

schools, and 396 non-identified high schools). 
Chapter II 54 

ALLOCATION OF TITLE I FUNDS TO SCHOOLWIDE AND TARGETED ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAMS

Schools may use Title I funds for one of two approaches: schoolwide programs or targeted assistance 

programs. Schoolwide programs are intended to raise the achievement of low-achieving students by 

improving instruction throughout the entire school and may blend Title I funds with other federal, state, 

or local funds. Schoolwide programs may be used only by high-poverty schools (those with 40 percent or 

more students from low-income families). Schools that are not eligible for (or do not choose to operate) 

schoolwide programs must use the funds to provide targeted services to specifically identified 

low-achieving students. 

In 2004–05, over half of all Title I schools were operating schoolwide programs (56 percent), with the 

remaining 44 percent using the more traditional targeted assistance approach (see Exhibit 36). 

Schoolwide programs 

accounted for an even 

larger percentage of 

students in 

Title I schools 

(61 percent) and almost 

three-fourths 

(73 percent) of the 

low-income students 

enrolled in 

Title I schools. 

Schoolwide programs 

served almost one-third 

(31 percent) of all 

schools in the nation, 

enrolling 30 percent of 

all students and 

52 percent of all 

low-income students in 

the nation. 

Not all Title I schools 

that were eligible to 

operate schoolwide 

programs actually used 

this option. Of the 

Title I schools that were 

eligible to operate 

schoolwide programs, 70 percent did so in 2004–05. The highest-poverty schools (79 percent) were 

more likely than the lower-poverty schools (43 percent) to operate schoolwide programs.32 In 1997–98, a 

higher percentage (82 percent) of eligible schools operated schoolwide programs. The percentage decline 

during this period may be attributed to the increased number of schoolwide-eligible schools after the 

poverty threshold for eligibility was lowered. 

 

32Lower-poverty schools were those enrolling between 35 and 50 percent low-income students.

Exhibit 36 

Distribution of Schools, Students, and Low-income Students 

in the Nation, by Type of Title I Program, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Title I schoolwide programs served 56 percent of the nation's 

Title I schools and 73 percent of all low-income students in Title I schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=7,993 Title I schools, including 

1,679 targeted assistance schools and 6,314 schoolwide programs). 
Chapter II 55 

Change in the number of schoolwide programs and targeted 

assistance schools, 1997–98 to 2004–05 

When the schoolwide program option was first added to the law in 1978, the eligibility threshold for 

Title I schools to operate schoolwide programs was 75 percent low-income students, but few eligible 

schools chose to use this approach. In the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, the eligibility threshold was 

reduced to 50 percent, and under the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress further lowered the eligibility 

threshold to 40 percent. These reductions in the eligibility threshold for schoolwide programs have the 

effect of increasing the proportion of schools that may use Title I funds to support schoolwide 

programs, and are consistent with a trend in school reform to encourage more comprehensive strategies 

for school improvement. 

Over the past 10 years there has been a steady and dramatic increase in the number 

of schools using Title I funds for schoolwide programs. 

The lowering of the eligibility threshold for schoolwide programs in 1994 and 2001 increased the 

number of schools that could use Title I funds to support schoolwide programs, and increasing numbers 

of Title I schools have elected to use this approach. The total number of Title I schoolwide programs 

rose from 5,050 (10 percent) in 1994–95 to 14,891 (32 percent) in 1996–97 and 31,445 in 

2004–05 (59 percent) (see Exhibit 37). 

Exhibit 37 

Number of Title I Schoolwide Programs and 

Targeted Assistance Programs, 1994–95 to 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: The total number of schoolwide programs increased steadily over the decade from 

1994–95 to 2004–05, rising from 5,050 in 1994–95 to 14,891 in 1996–97 and 31,445 in 2004–05. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports.
Chapter II 56 

Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the share of Title I funds allocated to schoolwide 

programs increased. 

Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the proportion of Title I funds allocated to schoolwide programs 

increased from 60 to 70 percent. Conversely, Title I funding for targeted assistance programs declined 

from 40 to 30 percent during the same period (see Exhibit 38). 

Exhibit 38 

Distribution of Title I Funds, by Program Type, 1997–98 and 

2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

Exhibit reads: Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the proportion of Title I funds 

used in schoolwide programs increased from 60 percent to 70 percent. 

* Indicates that the 2004–05 percentages are significantly different from the 

1997–98 percentages (p<.05).

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=2,777 schoolwide 

programs and 2,293 targeted assistance programs); NLS-NCLB, school allocations, 

2004–05 (n=6,333 schoolwide programs and 1,652 targeted assistance programs). 
Chapter II 57 

Although schoolwide programs 

received a larger share of Title I, 

Part A, funds than targeted 

assistance programs, they also 

served a much larger share of 

low-income students than the 

targeted assistance programs. The 

Title I allocation per low-income 

student in schoolwide programs was 

about 16 percent lower than that for 

targeted assistance programs ($584 

and $683, respectively). Between 

1997–98 and 2004–05, the 

Title I allocation per low-income 

student in targeted assistance 

programs rose from $605 to $683 (a 

13 percent increase), but the 

Title I allocation per low-income 

student in schoolwide programs was 

similar across the years ($541 and 

$584). 

DISCUSSION 

Federal education programs targeted 

a substantially greater share of their 

funds to higher-poverty districts 

compared with state and local funds. 

The six federal programs that were 

the focus of this study allocated 

43 to 73 percent of their funds to 

the highest-poverty districts, 

compared with 21 percent of state 

and local funds, and also exceeded 

the overall average federal share 

(38 percent) allocated to these same 

districts. The programs that targeted the largest share of their funds to the highest-poverty districts were 

Reading First, CSR, and Title I, but Title I had the largest overall impact because of the sheer magnitude 

of the program, representing about 30 percent of all U.S. Department of Education funds for elementary 

and secondary education. 

However, the districts in the highest poverty quartile had lower total revenues per student than the 

lowest-poverty districts, which had substantially higher levels of local revenues. Overall, the highestpoverty districts received $10,025 per pupil in total revenues, compared with $10,836 in the lowestpoverty districts. 

Data on changes in Title I targeting present a mixed picture. At the district level, the share of 

Title I funds going to the highest-poverty districts has increased slightly, but at the school level, targeting 

has not changed. In the highest-poverty schools, Title I funding per low-income student had not 

increased since 1997–98, despite substantial increases in appropriations. Moreover, the highest-poverty 

Exhibit 39 

Average Title I Funding by Type of Title I Program, 

1997–98 and 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, targeted assistance programs received 

$683 Title I funds per low-income student compared with $605 in 

1997–98 (in constant 2004–05 dollars).

* Indicates that the 2004–05 amount is significantly different from the 

1997–98 amount (p<.05). 

Source: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 

1997–98 (n=3,352 Title I schools, including 1,445 targeted assistance 

schools and 1,907 schoolwide programs); NLS-NCLB, school allocations, 

2004–05 (n=7,856 Title I schools, including 1,618 targeted assistance 

schools and 6,238 schoolwide programs). 
Chapter II 58 

Title I schools continued to receive less Title I funding per low-income student in 2004–05 than both 

medium- and low-poverty Title I schools. 

Schools that were identified for improvement were more likely to receive Title I funds than were 

non-identified schools, but they received a smaller average allocation per low-income student. Similarly, 

Title I schoolwide programs received smaller allocations per low-income student than did targeted 

assistance programs. 
Chapter III 59 

III. USES OF FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDS 

The six federal programs in this study give funds to districts and schools for instruction, instructional 

support, and administration. In 2004–05, these six programs, which differ dramatically in size, provided 

$18.4 billion in revenues to districts and schools. Title I and Title II, both formula grant programs, 

provided the largest amount of funds to school districts. Title I alone provided $12.3 billion to improve 

achievement and help disadvantaged children meet state standards. Title II provided $2.9 billion to help 

reduce class size and enhance teacher and principal qualifications. Reading First, a discretionary grant 

program, provided more than $1.0 billion to improve reading programs in schools serving K–3 students. 

Perkins ($741 million), Title III ($681 million), and CSR ($234 million) provided comparatively less 

funding. 

This chapter explores the share of funds allocated to the state, district, and school levels; how funds were 

used for different purposes at the district level; the extent to which federal funds were used for 

professional development; and how schools used their Title I funds. Finally, the chapter discusses the 

barriers to the consolidation of program funds in schoolwide programs. 

ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS AMONG THE STATE, DISTRICT, AND 

SCHOOL LEVELS 

The distribution of federal funds from the federal government to states and then to school districts and 

other subgrantees is a complex process. States may reserve some of the funds for state administration, 

technical assistance, evaluation, and other needs as allowed under the law. But most of the funds are 

allocated to school districts through either statutory formulas or a competitive grant process (see 

Exhibit 2 in Chapter I). 

Most funds from the six federal programs were allocated to school districts. 

Key Findings 

• Federal program funds were used mainly for instruction. For five of the six programs, the 

share of funds that districts and schools used for instructional purposes (e.g., on teacher 

salaries, instructional materials) ranged from 65 to 75 percent; CSR was somewhat lower 

(54 percent). Most of the remaining funds were used for instructional and student support 

(e.g., professional development, parent involvement), ranging from 18 percent (Title I) to 

42 percent (Section 1003), while between 4 and 10 percent of the funds for each program were 

used for administration and other support. 

• Of the six programs in this study, Title I was the largest source of federal funds used 

for professional development ($1.0 billion, based on district fiscal records), followed by 

Title II ($518 million). However, these figures may underestimate spending on professional 

development because district accounting systems do not always clearly identify such 

expenditures. For example, a survey of Title II district coordinators suggested that districts 

actually spent $959 million in Title II funds for professional development. 

• About 90 percent of Title I funds spent on personnel resources at the school level were 

used for salaries and benefits for instructional staff; more than four-fifths of these funds 

were used to employ teachers. However, the highest-poverty schools tended to spend 

proportionately more of their Title I funds on instructional and student support (e.g., library 

and media personnel, counselors, social workers) and proportionately less on instructional staff 

(e.g., teachers and aides) than the lowest-poverty schools. 

• Title I schools decreased their reliance on Title I teacher aides in recent years. While 

the number of Title I teachers increased by almost 50 percent between 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

the number of Title I aides decreased by 10 percent. The ratio of Title I teacher aides to 

Title I teachers declined by about 40 percent from 1997–98 to 2004–05. 

• Although districts may consolidate Title I funds and funds from other sources to 

support schoolwide activities, few districts reported that they did so. State accounting 

rules were cited as a major barrier to the consolidation of funding.
Chapter III 60 

ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS AMONG THE STATE, DISTRICT, AND 

SCHOOL LEVELS 

The distribution of federal funds from the federal government to states and then to school districts and 

other subgrantees is a complex process. States may reserve some of the funds for state administration, 

technical assistance, evaluation, and other needs as allowed under the law. The remaining funds are then 

allocated to school districts and other subgrantees through either statutory formulas or a competitive 

grant process (see Exhibit 2 in Chapter I). 

Most funds from the six federal programs were allocated to school districts. 

With the exception of Perkins, the majority of the funds were distributed to school districts (see 

Exhibit 40). For Title I, CSR, and Title II, states distributed more than 90 percent of their funds to 

school districts. For Reading First, Section 1003, and Title III, states distributed between 72 and 

86 percent of their funds to school districts. For Perkins, states distributed about half of the funds 

(51 percent) to school districts. 

The study found that the 

amount of funds retained by 

state education agencies was 

consistent with the maximum 

levels prescribed in the law. 

For Title I, states retained 

about 1 percent of all the 

program funds for state-level 

activities. For Section 1003, 

CSR, Title II, and Title III, 

states retained between 3 and 

5 percent of all the program 

funds while for Reading First 

and Perkins, states retained 

about 17 percent and 

11 percent, respectively. For 

Reading First, the law permits 

states to reserve up to 

20 percent of the funds for 

professional development, 

technical assistance, and 

administration. For Perkins, 

states were permitted to retain 

up to 10 percent of their 

Perkins grant for leadership 

activities and up to 5 percent or 

$250,000, whichever is less, for 

state administrative costs. For the other programs studied, the amount of funds that can be retained at 

the state level is generally less than 5 percent of the total (see Exhibit 2 in Chapter I). 

States were asked to report on suballocations to all types of agencies, but many only reported their 

suballocations to school districts. As a result, the data collected by this study cannot provide accurate 

Exhibit 40 

Distribution of Federal Program Funds, by Agency Type, 

2004–05 

State 

Education 

Agencies 

School 

Districts 

Other 

Agencies 

Not 

Reported 

Title I 1.4% 96.8% 0.4% 1.5% 

Section 1003 3.3% 79.4% 0.6% 16.7% 

Reading First 16.8% 72.3% 0.2% 10.7% 

CSR 4.3% 92.4% 0.3% 3.0% 

Title II 3.5% 94.3% 0.6% 1.7% 

Title III 5.1% 86.2% 0.4% 8.4% 

Perkins 11.1% 50.9% 9.9% 28.0% 

Exhibit reads: State education agencies (SEAs) retained 1.4 percent of 

their Title I funds for 2004–05 for state-level activities, and they 

suballocated 96.8 percent of the funds to school districts and 0.4 percent 

to other types of agencies. The suballocations reported by SEAs 

accounted for 98.5 percent of states’ total Title I allocations; SEAs did 

not report the recipients of the remaining 1.5 percent of the funds. 

Notes: Row totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. States were 

asked to report on suballocations to all types of agencies, but many only 

reported on suballocations to school districts, so these data cannot provide 

accurate information on the share of funds that were allocated to other types of 

agencies.

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=16,858 subgrantees). 
Chapter III 61 

information on the share of funds that were allocated to other types of agencies. The percentage of 

non-reported funds was highest for the Perkins program, which permits states to suballocate some of the 

funds to postsecondary institutions as well as to school districts; most states did not provide data on 

their suballocations to postsecondary institutions. 

Allocation of Title I Section 1003 funds 

Most states (36 states and the District of Columbia) retained the maximum allowable 

amount of Section 1003 funds and used these funds to provide direct services to 

schools identified for improvement. 

Section 1003 of Title I requires states to set aside 4 percent of Title I funds for school improvement 

activities. Of this amount, states are allowed to retain a maximum of 5 percent to provide direct services 

(e.g., through school support teams or 

educational service agencies) to schools 

identified for improvement. In 2004–05, 

36 states and the District of Columbia 

retained 5 percent of Section 1003 funds 

for state-level activities. Nine states and 

Puerto Rico did not retain any funds for 

this purpose (see Exhibit 41).33

A provision under Section 1003(b)(2) 

allows states to retain Section 1003 

funds with the agreement of the districts 

that would otherwise receive the funds. 

Under this provision, states may retain 

these funds to provide direct services to 

the districts through technical support, 

such as school support teams. 

Nine states reported doing so in 

2004–05.34 

District allocation of Title I, Reading First, and CSR funds 

Districts allocated between 74 percent and 83 percent of Title I, Reading First, and 

CSR funds to individual schools. 35 

Districts may set aside a certain portion of federal funds for program administration as well as for 

programs and services that are administered or accounted for at the district level, before allocating the 

rest of the funds to individual schools. In 2004–05, districts allocated an estimated 83 percent of Reading 

First funds, 79 percent of CSR funds, and 74 percent of Title I funds to individual public schools. 

Among the funds retained at the district-level, between 3 and 5 percent of all program funds were spent 

on district-level program administration and the remaining were spent on districtwide services. For 

 

33 These were Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming. 34 These were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming. 35 The school-level analysis focused on three of the six programs in this study—Title I, CSR, and Reading First—

because school allocations data were frequently available for these three programs but were less readily available for the 

other three programs in the study. 

Exhibit 41 

State Uses of Title I Section 1003 Funds, 2004–05 

 Number 

Number of states that retained the maximum 

allowable amount of Section 1003 funds (5%) 37a

Number of states that retained between 1% and 4% 

of Section 1003 funds 4 

Number of states that did not retain any of the funds 10b

Total number of responding states 51c

Exhibit reads: Thirty-six states and the District of 

Columbia retained the maximum allowable amount of 

Section 1003 funds. 

a Includes the District of Columbia.

b Includes Puerto Rico.

c Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations. 
Chapter III 62 

Title I, 21 percent of districts’ Title I funds were used for district-managed services and programs such as 

professional development, preschool, student transportation for school choice, supplemental education 

services, extended-time programs (e.g., before- and after-school and summer programs), and other 

districtwide instructional support services (see Exhibit 42). These percentages were lower for CSR 

(18 percent) and Reading First (14 percent). 

We might expect to see an increase in the share of Title I funds being used at the district level after the 

passage of NCLB, because the law included several new provisions requiring districts to reserve a 

portion of the funds for professional development, school choice, and supplemental educational 

services. Section 1116(b)(10) requires Title I districts with one or more schools identified for 

improvement to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of the district’s Title I allocation to provide 

eligible students with supplemental educational services under Section 1116(e) and to provide 

transportation to students who transfer to a new school under Section 1116(b)(9). Section 1116(c)(7) 

requires districts that have been identified for improvement to spend not less than 10 percent of the 

district’s Title I funds to address the professional development needs of its instructional staff. Section 

1119(l) requires districts to spend not less than 5 percent of their Title I funds to provide professional 

development to enable teachers to become highly qualified. NCLB also continued a previous 

requirement for districts to spend at least 1 percent of their Title I funds on parent involvement. 

Consistent with these new requirements, estimates based on district fiscal records for the sample districts 

show a decline in the share of Title I funds allocated to the school level, from 83 percent in 1997–98, 

based on the previous SERFF study, to 74 percent in 2004–05. 

Exhibit 42 

District Allocation of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Funds 

Between the District and School Levels, 2004–05 

Title I

(n=267)

Reading First 

(n=84)

CSR 

(n=82)

Amount 

($ in Millions)

Share of 

Funds 

Amount 

($ in Millions)

Share of 

Funds 

Amount 

($ in Millions) 

Share of 

Funds 

Allocations to public schools $8,916 74% $677 83% $167 79% 

District-level activities $3,133 26% $138 17% $45 21% 

District-managed services 

(e.g., professional 

development, transportation, 

supplemental educational 

services) $2,511 21% $115 14% $38 18% 

 District administration $622 5% $23 3% $7 3% 

Total $12,049 100% $815 100% $212 100% 

Exhibit reads: Districts allocated $8.916 billion (74 percent) of their Title I funds to individual public 

schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records and school allocations.
Chapter III 63 

DISTRICT AND SCHOOL USES OF FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS 

This section examines the overall uses of federal funds at the district and school levels, including the 

amount of funds going to instruction, instructional support, and school or district administration. In 

these analyses, the instructional expenditures category includes the salaries and benefits for teachers and 

teacher aides as well as expenditures on instructional materials, including student technology, and other 

instructional services (e.g., preschool, kindergarten, and extended-time programs). The instructional and 

student support expenditures category includes professional development, student support services, 

parental involvement, and other instructional support staff (e.g., social workers, librarians). Unless 

otherwise stated, administration includes both school administration and district administration and in 

some instances (when stated) includes other forms of indirect support services such as student 

transportation and facilities.36

Overall uses of federal program funds 

Federal program funds were used mainly for instruction. 

For the programs in this study, districts and schools spent between 51 and 75 percent of their federal 

program funds for instruction, which includes instructional staff and other instructional expenditures 

(see Exhibit 43). Most of the remaining funds were used for instructional support (18 to 42 percent), 

which includes professional development for teachers and other staff, reading coaches, school libraries 

and media centers, counselors and health services, and parent involvement. Administrative costs (which 

also include facilities and transportation costs) accounted for 4 to 10 percent of district expenditures 

under the federal programs in this study. 

The programs with the largest share of funds used for instructional purposes were Title III (75 percent), 

Title I (73 percent), and Perkins (72 percent). For two programs, about two-thirds of the funds were 

used for instruction (Title II at 67 percent and Reading First at 65 percent). For CSR and Section 1003, 

slightly over half of the funds were used for instruction (54 percent and 51 percent, respectively). 

In particular, salaries and benefits for instructional staff (teachers and aides) accounted for more than 

half of district expenditures from Title I, Title II, and Title III (59 percent, 63 percent, and 55 percent, 

respectively). Districts also spent a considerable portion of Reading First (42 percent) and CSR 

(31 percent) funds on instructional staff. 

Other types of instructional expenditures also accounted for a substantial percentage of federal program 

expenditures, particularly for the Perkins vocational education program (45 percent), whose funds are 

often used for instructional materials and equipment, consistent with the program’s focus on vocational 

and technical education. For Title I, these other instructional expenditures also included preschool and 

kindergarten programs, extended-time programs, and services for students enrolled in private schools. 

 

36 The study team collected district-level fiscal reports and systematically coded the expenditure items by functions and 

by objects of expenditure. The resulting resource cost database was used to estimate expenditures of federal funds in 

major functional categories such as administration, instruction, and instructional support, as well as in specific areas such 

as professional development, parental involvement, and student support. 
Chapter III 64 

Instructional and student support accounted for 42 percent of Section 1003 funds and 39 percent of 

CSR funds; these expenditures included professional development, student support staff (e.g., 

counselors, social workers, school nurses), instructional support staff (e.g., librarians), and parent 

involvement activities. Compared with Title I funds overall, a higher proportion of Section 1003 funds 

went to instructional support (42 percent vs. 18 percent). For the other programs studied, the share used 

for instructional and student support accounted for between 19 and 31 percent of the expenditures. 

The amount of funds used for administration and other support (including school- and district-level 

administration, facilities, and student transportation) varied from 4 percent (Reading First) to 10 percent 

(Title I). A more detailed analysis of the use of funds for all the federal programs, including how they 

vary by district poverty level and urbanicity, is presented in Appendix Exhibits C.20 through C.27. 

Exhibit 43 

District and School Uses of Federal Program Funds: 

Share of Expenditures Used for Instruction, Instructional and Student Support, and 

Program Administration, 2004–05

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, districts and schools spent 73 percent of their Title I funds on instruction, 

including 59 percent on salaries and benefits for instructional staff and 14 percent on other instructional 

expenditures. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=79 to 267 districts).
Chapter III 65 

For five of the seven federal programs studied, the share of funds spent on 

instruction was greater than the share of all elementary-secondary education funds 

combined that were spent on instruction. 

According to data reported by NCES for 2004–05, districts spent 61 percent of total school district 

expenditures (from all revenue sources) on instruction. This was less than the share of federal program 

funds spent on instruction for Title III (75 percent), Title I (73 percent), Perkins (72 percent), 

Title II (67 percent), and Reading First (65 percent). However, the share of funds spent on instruction 

for CSR and Section 1003 (54 percent and 51 percent, respectively) was lower than the average across all 

revenue sources.37 

Similarly, the share of funds used for instructional and student support was higher for all of the federal 

programs examined (ranging from 18 to 42 percent) than for school districts’ overall expenditures from 

all revenue sources (10 percent).38 (See Appendix Exhibit B.18 for more detailed information on the 

distribution of expenditures from all revenue sources). 

In terms of total expenditures, Title I, as the largest federal program supporting elementary and 

secondary education, showed the largest amount of expenditures for each category compared with other 

federal programs. For instructional staff, districts spent $7.1 billion in Title I funds, followed by 

$1.7 billion in Title II funds, $342 million in Reading First funds, and $283 million in Title III funds (see 

Exhibit 44). For other instructional expenditures, which included instructional materials and other 

instructional services (such as extended-time programs and some preschool and kindergarten programs), 

the largest total expenditures, after Title I at $1.7 billion, were Perkins ($296 million), Reading First 

($188 million), and Section 1003 ($156 million).39 For instructional and student support, Title I again 

accounted for the largest amount of expenditures ($2.1 billion), followed by Title II ($670 million), 

Reading First ($251 million), and Section 1003 ($208 million).40

 

37 The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), through the Common Core of Data (CCD) Survey, collects 

school district expenditure data on instruction, instructional support, and other activities from all funding sources. 

National Center for Education Statistics (2007), Digest of Education Statistics: 2007 (Washington, D.C.: National Center for 

Education Statistics), Table 167. The national data on expenditures from all revenue sources are for the 2004–05 school 

year.

38 These data sources may differ in the definitions of instruction, instructional support, and administration. For 

comparison purpose, the analysis combined certain CCD expenditures in order to closely match the categories used in 

reporting the Title I expenditures. The CCD-based figure for “instructional and student support” includes instructional 

staff services and student support. The CCD-based figure for “administration” includes categories of general 

administration, school administration, and other support services (e.g., business support and other support services). 39 Based on district personnel and payroll data, we estimate that districts spent approximately $348 million of 

Title I funds on preschool and kindergarten staff in 2004–05, amounting to about 2.9 percent of districts’ 

Title I expenditures. This estimate includes $249 million for preschool and $99 million for kindergarten. These figures 

may underestimate total Title I spending on preschool and kindergarten because they do not include non-personnel 

expenditures. Alternatively, we also tried to estimate Title I expenditures on preschool and kindergarten based on 

district fiscal records. These estimates are lower, at $86 million for preschool and $40 million for kindergarten 

($126 million for both), but we believe these estimates are less accurate because many districts do not track federal or 

nonfederal expenditures by grade or instructional program. 40 Section 1003 funds are also included in the amounts shown under Title I, Part A. 
Chapter III 66 

Exhibit 44 

Uses of Federal Funds: Expenditures for Instruction, Instructional and Student 

Support, and Administration and Other Support, 2004–05 ($ in Millions)

Title I

(n=267)

Title I Section 

1003

(n=79)

Reading 

First 

(n=84)

CSR 

(n=82)

Title II 

(n=266 )

Title III 

(n=180)

Perkins 

(n=140)

Instruction $8,778 $256 $530 $114 $1,857 $386 $462 

Instructional staff $7,069 $100 $342 $66 $1,745 $283 $176 

Instructional materials 

and equipment $1,443 $135 $179 $45 $77 $94 $283 

Other instructional 

servicesa $266 $21 $9 $3 $34 $10 $3 

Instructional and 

student support $2,122 $208 $251 $84 $670 $100 $129 

Professional 

development $1,009 $199 $103 $64 $518 $45 $44 

Other instructional 

and student support $1,114 $9 $147 $20 $152 $56 $84 

Administration and 

other supportb $1,149 $34 $34 $14 $259 $31 $51 

School administration $223 $4 $3 $6 $31 $7 $8 

District administration $622 $11 $23 $7 $178 $15 $19 

Other support $304 $19 $7 $2 $50 $9 $24 

Total $12,049 $497 $815 $212 $2,786 $517 $641 

Exhibit reads: Districts spent $7.069 billion of Title I funds on salaries and benefits for instructional 

staff in 2004–05. 

Note: Row subtotals may not add up to total due to rounding. 

a Includes other instructional expenditures such as for extended-time programs, preschool and kindergarten, and 

services to students in private schools.

b Includes expenditures on facilities and transportation as well as both school- and district-level administrative 

expenditures. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records. 
Chapter III 67 

Spending on Title I school choice and supplemental educational 

services 

Under NCLB, school districts must offer students in Title I schools that have been identified for 

improvement the option to transfer to another school, with transportation provided by the district. 

Districts also must offer supplemental educational services to low-income students in schools that have 

been identified for improvement for two or more years.41

Based on district responses to a survey conducted as part of the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, 

districts reported spending an average of $838 per participating student for supplemental educational 

services in 2005–06, about 26 percent less than the maximum per-child amount they reported allocating 

for such services in that year ($1,134). Total spending on Title I supplemental educational services was 

estimated to be $375 million in 2005–06, up from $192 million in 2003–04. This amounts to 

approximately 2.7 percent of total district and school Title I expenditures. In districts that offered 

supplemental services, the percentage of Title I funds used for these services in 2005–06 was 2.0 percent 

in the median district; the average (mean) spending level was 3.2 percent. 

In 2005–06, districts spent approximately $56 million on school choice-related transportation, up from 

$24 million in 2003–04. Based on estimated participation of 65,000 students in 2005–06, this would 

amount to an average of $965 per participant in schools that provided school choice-related 

transportation.42

Total spending on professional development 

NCLB places a strong emphasis on ensuring that each classroom has a highly qualified teacher and 

provides funds for this purpose primarily through Title I and Title II. The law sets new requirements for 

teacher qualifications and encourages states and districts to use a variety of strategies to achieve this goal. 

NCLB requires districts to use 5 percent of their Title I funds to implement professional development 

activities to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified. Schools that have been identified for 

improvement must use at least 10 percent of their Title I funds for professional development. These 

funds are provided to states and districts from other programs as well to implement improvement 

efforts, such as professional development to enhance teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills. 

Similarly, other federal education programs also place a strong emphasis on professional development. 

For example, the Reading First program provides funds to be used at the state and local levels to 

increase access and quality of professional development of all teachers who teach K–3 students. 

 

41 Districts must reserve up to 20 percent of their Title I funds to provide supplemental educational services and 

transportation of students who use the Title I school choice option. This amount includes 5 percent for school choicerelated transportation, 5 percent for supplemental educational services, and the remaining 10 percent for either type of 

services. 

42 For more information related to the provision of supplemental education services and choice-related transportation 

under NCLB, see U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2007), National Assessment of Title I, Final Report: Volume I: Implementation, by 

Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, and Joseph McCrary (NCEE 2008-4012), Washington, D.C.: Author. 
Chapter III 68 

In 2004–05, based on district fiscal records, the six federal programs in this study 

provided $1.8 billion to support professional development, with Title I providing 

more than half of these funds. 

As shown in 

2004–05 expenditure and 

budget records collected 

from the sample districts, 

Title I expenditures on 

professional development at 

the district and school levels 

amounted to about 

$1.009 billion, or 57 percent 

of the total federal funds 

from these six programs 

used for professional 

development. 

Title II expenditures for 

professional development 

amounted to $518 million, or 

29 percent (see Exhibit 45). 

Although Title I and Title II 

provided the most funds for 

professional development, 

the other four federal 

programs also showed 

substantial support for 

professional development 

activities: Reading First ($103 million), CSR ($64 million), Perkins ($45 million), and Title III 

($45 million). 

Exhibit 45 

Financial Contribution of Six Federal Programs 

to Funding for Professional Development, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In 2004–05, districts spent an estimated total of 

$1.009 billion from Title I funds to support professional development. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=76 to 239 districts). 
Chapter III 69 

Uses of federal program funds for professional development 

Based on district fiscal records, over three-fourths of grantee districts under Title I, 

Section 1003, Title II, and CSR used those funds to support professional development. 

Of the districts that received program funds, between 75 and 93 percent used Title I, Section 1003, Title II, 

and CSR funds for professional development, according to district fiscal records (see Exhibit 46).43 A 

little more than half of the districts used Reading First funds for professional development (57 percent); 

the percentages were lower for Title III (42 percent) and Perkins (43 percent). As a percentage of total 

district and school expenditures from each federal program, the programs with the largest shares of their 

funds spent on professional development were Section 1003 (40 percent), CSR (29 percent), 

Title II (19 percent), and Reading First (13 percent). However, these figures may be underestimates 

because of the difficulty of identifying professional development spending through fiscal reporting 

systems. For example, certain personnel categories, such as mentor teachers and literacy coaches whose 

functions were primarily to provide teacher professional development, might have been recorded under 

instructional staff or instructional support instead of under professional development. 

 

43 Based on district fiscal records, 75 percent of districts used Title II funds for professional development. This result is 

consistent with a separate analysis based on district responses on the uses of Title II funds, in which 25 percent of 

districts reported not using Title II funds for professional development. 

Exhibit 46 

Uses of Federal Program Funds for Professional Development 

Percentage of Districts Using Federal Funds for 

Professional Development, 2004–05 

Percentage of Federal Funds Spent on Professional 

Development, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Of the districts that received funds, 80 percent used Title I funds for professional 

development; districts also spent 8 percent of Title I funds in professional development. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records.
Chapter III 70 

Uses of Title II funds for professional development and class size 

reduction 

This study supplemented the fiscal records with a district-level survey that collected additional 

information on the uses of Title II funds allowed under NCLB. Districts were asked to report their 

estimated Title II expenditures for specific purposes allowed under the law, including hiring teachers to 

reduce class size, providing professional development for teachers and principals, offering initiatives to 

reward quality teaching, and initiating programs to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. Districts 

were also asked to estimate the percentage of Title II funds spent on professional development by topic, 

including specific academic subject areas, such as mathematics and science, as well as nonacademic 

content. 

District fiscal data may underestimate total district spending on professional 

development. 

The responses of districts to survey questions about their uses of Title II funds suggest that the fiscal 

data reported above may have underestimated total district spending on professional development. 

Based on district financial records, districts spent an average of 19 percent of their Title II funds for 

professional development activities, amounting to approximately $529 million in 2004–05. However, 

when districts were asked directly about how they spent their Title II funds, they indicated a substantially 

higher share of funds (35 percent, or $959 million) going to professional development for teachers, 

paraprofessionals, and principals. It is possible that some professional development expenditures were 

not clearly identified as such in district financial accounting systems. For example, funding for certain 

personnel, such as mentor teachers and literacy coaches whose functions were mainly teacher training 

and mentoring, may have been recorded in the district accounting system under teacher salaries in direct 

instruction or as administrators, rather than as a professional development expenditure. 

Districts used more of their Title II funds for class-size reduction than for 

professional development activities. 

Based on the district survey responses, spending on teacher salaries to reduce class size accounted for the 

largest share (50 percent, or $1.4 billion) of district Title II expenditures, followed by professional 

development for teachers and paraprofessionals (31 percent) (see Exhibit 47). The survey-based estimate 

of spending on class-size reduction is similar to that produced by the financial records analysis, which 

found that 56 percent of Title II funds were used for teacher salaries. This amount included funds used 

for class-size reduction but might also include other types of expenditures such as recruitment and 

retention incentives. 

These findings are similar to those from a previous district survey conducted in 2002–03 that found that 

58 percent of Title II funds were used for class-size reduction and 25 percent were used for professional 

development.44

Relatively small amounts of Title II funds were used for other activities authorized 

under the law, such as teacher recruitment and retention programs. 

 

44 U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Improving Teacher Quality in U.S. Districts: Districts’ 

Use of Title II, Part A, Funds, 2002–03. Washington, D.C. (2004), available at www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/uof.pdf, 

retrieved June 25, 2007. 
Chapter III 71 

For example, districts spent 3 percent ($84 million) of Title II funds for programs and initiatives to help 

schools retain personnel, 2 percent ($64 million) on recruitment programs, and 1 percent ($17 million) 

on initiatives that rewarded quality teaching (see Exhibit 47 and Appendix C.33). 

Similarly, according to the district fiscal records analysis, three-fourths (75 percent) of Title II funds were 

spent on teacher salaries and professional development, leaving 25 percent for other uses; these funds 

were spent on salaries for teacher aides (6 percent), other instructional expenditures (4 percent), other 

instructional or student support expenditures (5 percent), and administrative costs (9 percent) (see 

Appendix Exhibit C.22). The share spent on administrative costs based on the fiscal records analysis 

(9 percent) was considerably higher than the share reported by districts (3 percent). One possible 

explanation is that some staff classified as administrators in district accounting systems might support 

programmatic activities such as training teachers; other expenditures classified as administrative costs 

might also support specific program initiatives. 

Exhibit 47 

Percentage of Title II Funds Used for Various Program Activities as Reported by 

District Coordinators, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Fifty percent of Title II funds were used to reduce class sizes by hiring additional 

teachers. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey on uses of Title II funds (n=215 districts).
Chapter III 72 

According to district survey responses 

on the uses of Title II funds, districts 

estimated that over half of their 

Title II funds that were spent on 

professional development were used for 

professional development in reading and 

language arts (29 percent) and 

mathematics (25 percent). Smaller 

shares were spent on professional 

development in science (11 percent) and 

history and social studies (6 percent). 

Thirteen percent were used for other 

academic subjects and 15 percent were 

used for nonacademic subjects (see 

Exhibit 48). 

A previous district survey conducted in 

2002–03 produced similar estimates of 

the share of Title II professional 

development expenditures that were 

used for mathematics (25 percent), 

science (14 percent), history and social 

studies (8 percent), and nonacademic subjects (11 percent). However, this earlier survey estimated a 

higher proportion of such funds being used for reading (39 percent) and a smaller proportion for other 

academic subjects (3 percent).45

VARIATION IN USES OF TITLE I FUNDS FOR PERSONNEL RESOURCES

This section examines variations in the uses of Title I personnel resources at the school level by grade 

level, poverty level, and type of Title I school. The analysis focuses only on school personnel resources 

because data on total expenditures were not available at the school level. District fiscal records generally 

do not account separately for school-level expenditures; for example, expenditures on non-personnel 

resources are most often accounted for centrally at the district level but are rarely traceable to individual 

schools. However, this study was able to estimate school-level personnel expenditures by using detailed 

personnel and payroll information collected for the sample schools. 

About 88 percent of Title I funds spent on personnel resources at the school level 

were spent on instructional staff, of which over four-fifths were spent on teachers. 

Specifically, of the Title I funds spent on personnel at the school level, 71 percent were used to employ 

teachers and 17 percent were used for teacher aides. The remaining 12 percent went toward instructional 

and student support staff (7 percent), as well as other staff, including program administrators (5 percent) 

(see Exhibit 49). 

 

45 U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Improving Teacher Quality in U.S. Districts: Districts’ 

Use of Title II, Part A, Funds, 2002–03. Washington, D.C. (2004), available at www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/uof.pdf, 

retrieved June 25, 2007. 

Exhibit 48 

Share of Title II Funds Used for Professional 

Development, by Topic, 2004–05

Topic 

Share of Title II 

Professional Development 

Expenditures 

Reading/English/language arts 29% 

Mathematics 25% 

Science 11% 

History/social studies 6% 

Other academic subjects 13% 

Other nonacademic subjects 15% 

Total 100% 

Exhibit reads: Of the Title II funds that districts used for 

professional development, districts reported that 29 percent 

were used for training in reading, English, and language arts. 

Note: Row totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey on uses of Title II funds 

(n=165 districts). 
Chapter III 73 

Exhibit 49 

Uses of Title I, Part A, Funds for Personnel Expenditures 

at the School Level, by School Grade Level, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In all Title I schools, 71 percent of the Title I funds spent on 

personnel resources were spent on teachers. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 

 The pattern of Title I spending on personnel in Title I elementary schools was similar to that 

observed across all Title I schools. However, the pattern of spending varied across secondary 

grades. Although Title I middle and elementary schools spent a similar proportion (89 and 

87 percent, respectively) of their personnel expenditures on instructional staff (i.e., teachers and 

aides), the middle schools spent a higher proportion on teachers than on teacher aides 

(78 percent and 9 percent, respectively), compared with Title I elementary schools (70 percent 

and 19 percent, respectively). In Title I high schools, a lower percentage of the total personnel 

expenditures went to instructional staff (79 percent) than in schools in the other two grade 

levels. Title I high schools also spent a lower proportion of their Title I funds on teacher aides 

and a higher proportion of the funds on instructional and student support staff than did 

Title I elementary schools. 
Chapter III 74 

The highest-poverty schools tended to spend proportionately more of their 

Title I funds on instructional and student support, and proportionately less on 

instructional staff than the lowest-poverty schools. 

In 2004–05, the highest-poverty schools spent a lower proportion of their Title I personnel funds on 

instructional staff (83 percent) than the lowest-poverty schools (96 percent) (see Exhibit 50). 

Corresponding to this finding, the highest-poverty schools spent a larger proportion of these funds on 

instructional and student support staff (10 percent) than the lowest-poverty schools (2 percent). 

Exhibit 50 

Uses of Title I Funds for Personnel Expenditures at the School Level, 

by Poverty Level and Type of Title I School, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In the highest-poverty schools, 68 percent of the Title I funds spent on personnel 

resources were spent on teachers. 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 

Targeted assistance schools and schoolwide programs showed differences in spending patterns that were 

similar to those between the lowest-poverty and the highest-poverty schools. This similarity is expected, 

because the lowest-poverty schools tended to be targeted assistance schools, while the highest-poverty 
Chapter III 75 

schools tended to be schoolwide program schools. Similarly, the proportion spent on instructional staff 

was higher in targeted assistance schools than in schoolwide program schools (94 percent and 

87 percent, respectively). Compared with targeted assistance schools, schoolwide program schools spent 

almost three times more of their Title I personnel spending toward instructional and student support 

staff (see Exhibit 50). 

Title I schools that were identified for improvement spent a lower proportion of their Title I funds on 

instructional staff (85 percent) than Title I schools not identified for improvement (90 percent). 

Although the percentage of funds spent on teachers in identified Title I schools was not significantly 

different from that in non-identified schools, non-identified schools spent more than twice as much on 

teacher aides (20 percent) than on identified schools (9 percent). Hence, the difference in proportion 

spent on instructional staff is largely due to the difference in the proportion spent on teacher aides than 

on other kinds of staff. 

Change in mix of teachers and aides since reauthorization 

The additional teachers and aides hired with Title I funds make up the most significant resource that 

Title I adds to schools. As indicated earlier, close to 90 percent of Title I funds spent on school 

personnel resources were used to hire instructional staff. Prior to NCLB, Title I funds were used to 

employ a larger number of teacher aides than teachers; a previous study estimated that there were 

68,724 Title I aides and 66,002 Title I teachers in 1997–98. Due to concerns about the quality of the 

instructional support provided by teacher aides (also known as paraprofessionals), NCLB strengthened 

requirements for their qualifications. To be considered qualified under NCLB, Title I instructional aides 

must have passed a state-endorsed or state-required paraprofessional assessment or must have either 

two years of college or an associate’s degree. 

Over the past seven years, Title I schools decreased their reliance on Title I teacher 

aides, and the ratio of Title I teacher aides to Title I teachers declined by about 

40 percent. 

Between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) Title I staff increased by 

49 percent whereas the 

number of FTE 

Title I teacher aides 

declined by 10 percent (see 

Exhibit 51). The 

proportion of teacher aides 

among Title I school staff 

declined from 47 percent 

to 35 percent, whereas the 

share of teachers rose from 

45 percent to 55 percent 

during the same period. In 

absolute numbers, the total 

number of teachers hired 

through Title I funds 

increased from 

66,002 FTEs to 

98,206 FTEs between 

1997–98 and 2004–05, 

Exhibit 51 

Composition of FTE Title I Staff in the Nation, 

1997–98 and 2004–05 

Types of Staff 1997–98 2004–05 Percent Change 

Teachers 66,002 98,206 +49% 

Teacher aides 68,724 61,952 –10% 

Administrative staff (certified) 2,675 3,965 +48% 

Support staff (certified) 4,005 7,145 +78% 

Other staff (noncertified) 4,199 8,280 +97% 

Total 145,605 179,547 +23% 

Exhibit reads: The total number of FTE Title I teachers increased from 

66,002 in 1997–98 to 98,206 in 2004–05, a 23 percent increase. 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=269 

Title I schools); NLS-NCLB, district personnel records, 2004–05 (n=885 

Title I schools). 
Chapter III 76 

while the total number of Title I teacher aides decreased from 68,724 FTEs to 61,952 FTEs. This 

reflects a drop in the teacher aide-to-teacher ratio from 1.0 to 0.6. 

The percentage increase in the number of teachers (49 percent) was similar to the inflation-adjusted 

increase in Title I appropriations during this period (46 percent); the increase in the total number of 

Title I staff was 23 percent. 

CONSOLIDATION OF FUNDS IN SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS

A school may use Title I funds for either a schoolwide program or a targeted assistance program, 

depending on the school’s poverty rate. Schools with 40 percent or more students from low-income 

families are eligible to adopt schoolwide programs, which are aimed at improving instruction throughout 

the entire school. Schools that are not eligible for (or do not choose to operate) schoolwide programs 

must use the funds to provide targeted services to specifically identified low-achieving students. 

Under the law, schoolwide programs provide two kinds of flexibility. First, schools operating these 

programs do not need to restrict Title I funds to providing services for individual students who are 

specifically identified as “Title I students” because they are failing or most at risk of failing; rather, 

schools may use funds to improve instruction and services throughout the whole school, and the services 

provided do not need to be supplemental to those a school would otherwise provide. Second, a 

schoolwide program may consolidate Title I funds with other federal, state, and local funds to support a 

comprehensive and integrated approach to improving its instructional program. If a school consolidates 

Title I and other funds under a schoolwide program, it does not need to track its expenditures of federal 

funds by program nor does it need to comply with most of the statutory and regulatory requirements of 

those programs, as long as it meets the intent and purposes of each program.46 

Few districts (6 percent) that operated Title I schoolwide programs actually 

consolidated Title I funds and funds from other sources into a single pot of funds to 

support schoolwide activities. 

Most commonly, districts reported that schoolwide programs coordinated their Title I funds with funds 

from other federal, state and local sources (62 percent). About one-fourth (23 percent) of districts 

reported that schoolwide programs used Title I funds more flexibly than targeted assistance programs 

but did not consolidate or coordinate Title I and other funds. Nine percent reported that schoolwide 

programs used Title I funds in a manner similar to that used by targeted assistance programs (see 

Exhibit 52).

 

46 Under NCLB, the following requirements apply to record-keeping for schoolwide programs: “A school that 

consolidates and uses funds from different Federal programs under this section shall not be required to maintain 

separate fiscal accounting records, by program, that identify the specific activities supported by those particular funds as 

long as the school maintains records that demonstrate that the schoolwide program, considered as a whole, addresses the 

intent and purposes of each of the Federal programs that were consolidated to support the schoolwide program” 

(Section 1114(a)(3)(C)).
Chapter III 77 

Expenditure data submitted by districts provided further evidence that funds from different sources 

were not generally consolidated. Most districts in the study sample continued to maintain records on the 

distinct uses of Title I funds in schoolwide programs. Although such schools could coordinate 

Title I funds with other funds, they rarely consolidated these funds in such a way that expenditures could 

no longer be attributed or traced to Title I. For example, of the 621 Title I schools operating schoolwide 

programs in the study sample, personnel salary data could be traced directly to the Title I program for 

613 schools (or 99 percent). This “response rate” was about the same as the expenditure data response 

rate for targeted assistance schools (99 percent). 

According to district administrators, state accounting rules were the most common 

barrier to the consolidation of funds in schoolwide programs. 

Forty-four percent of the district administrators surveyed indicated that state accounting rules were a 

barrier to the consolidation of funds, 42 percent reported concerns about potential audit exceptions as 

the barrier, and about a third (36 percent) reported that district accounting rules required separate 

accounting for different funding sources (see Exhibit 53). Other barriers included the need for training 

and understanding, in conjunction with the lack of information, about the program or finance issues 

among staff. 

Exhibit 52 

Consolidation of Program Funding in Districts With Schoolwide Programs, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Of the districts that operated schoolwide programs, 6 percent consolidated funds from 

Title I and other sources. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey (n=209 districts).
Chapter III 78 

DISCUSSION 

Despite some variation across programs, districts used the majority of funds from the six federal 

programs studied for instruction. The majority of Title I, Title II, and Title III funds, in particular, were 

allocated toward instructional staff. In 2004–05, the proportion devoted to instruction ranged from just 

over half for CSR to almost three-fourths for Title I. Excluding Section 1003, which is part of Title I, 

CSR allocated the largest proportion of funds to instructional support expenditures, and Perkins 

allocated the largest percentage to instructional supplies and equipment. 

The federal programs in this study were created to support educational improvement and target 

additional resources to meet the educational needs of school-age children who are economically and 

educationally disadvantaged. To accomplish these goals, states are required to send most of their federal 

funds to districts, and for some of the programs, districts are expected to send most of the grant funds 

to local schools. In general, findings from this study support this expected flow of funding from the state 

to the district and school levels. With the exception of Section 1003, Perkins and Reading First, states 

allocated over 85 percent of federal program funds to school districts. Almost three-fourths (74 percent) 

of Title I funds were allocated to the school level. However, between 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

the percentage of Title I dollars allocated to schools declined from 83 to 74 percent, and districts 

allocated a great share of the funds to non-administrative districtwide activities, such as professional 

development. 

The six federal programs provided close to $1.8 billion to support professional development in 2004–05. 

Title I and Title II were still the main sources of funding for professional development, with 

Title I providing more than half of the total funds. However, the other federal programs also contributed 

a significant share to spending on professional development. 

Exhibit 53 

Barriers to Consolidation of Funding in Title I Schoolwide Programs, 2004–05 

Percentage of Districts Reporting That Various 

Issues Posed a “Major” or “Moderate” Challenge 

for Consolidating Funds in Schoolwide Programs

Exhibit reads: Forty-four percent of Title I districts indicated that state accounting rules posed a 

“major” or “moderate” challenge for consolidating funds in schoolwide programs. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey (n=132 districts).
Chapter III 79 

Of the Title I funds spent on personnel resources at the school level, districts spent about 90 percent to 

employ instructional staff, including about four-fifths of this amount on teachers. Since 1997–98, 

districts have substantially increased their use of Title I funds to employ teachers, while decreasing the 

use of these funds to employ teacher aides. These combined findings—the increased reliance and 

spending on teachers (as opposed to teacher aides), and the considerable investment in professional 

development—appear consistent with NCLB’s goal of improving the qualifications of teachers and 

ensuring that high-quality teachers are recruited, trained, and hired to instruct the nation’s public school 

children. 

Successive reauthorizations of ESEA, and in particular its most recent reauthorization as NCLB, have 

sought to increase flexibility in the way funds are used to address program purposes. Under NCLB, 

schoolwide programs may consolidate Title I funds with other federal, state, and local funds to support a 

comprehensive and integrated approach to improving the school’s instructional program. Despite this 

flexibility provision, districts generally have not consolidated Title I funds with other funding sources, 

but have simply coordinated spending strategies—suggesting that NCLB’s goals and provisions for 

flexibility may not yet have been fully realized. 

Chapter IV 81 

IV. WHAT TITLE I ADDS TO STATE AND LOCAL RESOURCES AT THE 

SCHOOL LEVEL 

Title I funding is intended to “supplement, not supplant” the base of state and local resources that would 

be provided to schools in the absence of the Title I program. Moreover, Title I requires that the base of 

state and local resources is to be comparable in Title I and non–Title I schools within a district. This 

chapter examines variation in the level of resources provided in different types of schools before 

Title I funds are added, as well as the amount of resources added through Title I funds. It also provides a 

national picture of how resources compare in Title I and non–Title I schools, as well as in high- and 

low-poverty schools and across other types of schools. This report does not, however, examine district 

compliance with the comparability and “supplement-not-supplant” requirements because the nationally 

representative sample of schools does not include all schools within each sample district. 

Key Findings 

• On average, state and local funds provided similar levels of personnel resources to 

Title I and non–Title I schools. The highest- and lowest-poverty schools also did not 

differ in their personnel resources. Total personnel expenditures per pupil from state and 

local funding did not differ significantly between Title I and non–Title I schools and between 

highest- and lowest-poverty schools. The average number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff also 

did not differ significantly. 

• Title I added $408 per low-income student (a 9 percent increase over base state and local 

sources) to school-level personnel resources. The amount that Title I added to personnel 

expenditures was highest in elementary schools and lowest in high schools, but it did not vary 

significantly by school poverty level, type of Title I program (schoolwide or targeted assistance), 

or whether or not schools were identified for improvement. For elementary schools, 

Title I added a significantly higher amount of personnel resources in the lowest-poverty schools 

than in the highest-poverty schools.

• Title I added more full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff in the highest-poverty schools than 

in the lowest-poverty schools. Similarly, Title I added more FTE staff in schoolwide programs 

(typically the highest-poverty schools) than in targeted assistance schools (typically the 

lowest-poverty Title I schools). There was no difference in what Title I added to schools based 

on whether or not they were identified for improvement. 

• Teachers in the highest-poverty schools tended to have less experience, were less likely 

to have an advanced degree (master’s degree or higher), and had lower salaries than 

teachers in the lowest-poverty schools. The highest-poverty schools also tended to have more 

teachers with less than three years of teaching experience when compared with the 

lowest-poverty schools.
Chapter IV 82 

A COMPARISON OF BASE STATE AND LOCAL PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES IN 

SCHOOLS CLASSIFIED BY TITLE I STATUS AND POVERTY

This analysis focused on personnel expenditures because data on total school-level expenditures are not 

generally available. Districts and schools typically do not keep records of all school-level expenditures 

because many expenses (especially non-personnel expenditures) are commonly accounted for at the 

district level and are not broken out or reported by the individual school. For example, instructional 

materials, books, capital outlay (e.g., technology), and other such non-personnel items may be expended 

on behalf of the schools, but are difficult to trace through school budgets to the specific schools that 

ultimately receive them. However, this study was able to estimate school-level personnel expenditures by 

using detailed personnel and payroll information collected on all staff in each sample school. Although 

data on personnel expenditures do not provide a complete picture of school resources, personnel 

expenditures account for approximately 90 percent of total Title I allocations to schools. 

School personnel expenditures per student by Title I status 

On average, Title I and non–Title I schools appeared to have a similar base level of 

state and local school personnel expenditures (i.e., excluding Title I and other 

federal funds). 

Across the nation, Title I and non–Title I schools had similar base levels of state and local expenditures 

per student on both instructional and noninstructional school personnel (see Exhibit 54). There were no 

statistically significant differences between Title I and non–Title I schools at either the elementary or 

high school levels. At the middle school level, however, base state and local personnel expenditures per 

student at non–Title I schools ($4,902) were 19 percent higher than at Title I schools ($4,136). 

Comparisons of spending across grade levels showed that Title I middle schools had significantly lower 

state and local personnel expenditures per student ($4,136) than Title I elementary schools ($4,486) and 

Title I high schools ($4,931). Title I middle schools also had significantly lower base instructional 

personnel expenditures per student than Title I elementary and high schools. Non–Title I middle schools 

had significantly higher state and local expenditures per student ($4,902) than non–Title I elementary 

schools ($4,385). 

The allocations of per-student expenditures for instructional and noninstructional staff were similar 

across Title I and non–Title I schools and across grade levels. About three-fourths of the state and local 

funds spent on school-level personnel were used to employ instructional staff. 
Chapter IV 83 

Exhibit 54 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel Expenditures 

per Student in Title I and Non–Title I Schools, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Across all schools, total personnel expenditures per student from state and local sources 

in Title I and non–Title I schools were similar ($4,559 and $4,641, respectively). Spending on 

instructional personnel was also similar across all Title I and all non–Title I schools ($3,485 and $3,565, 

respectively). 

* Indicates that the amount is significantly different from the corresponding amount for Title I schools at the same 

grade level (p < 0.05). 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records.

School staffing levels by Title I status 

The following section compares the numbers of school staff provided by Title I and other nonfederal 

(i.e., state and local) funds in different types of schools. To compare school staffing levels in different 

types of schools, this analysis examined the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff per school based 

on an enrollment size of 500 students, which is a rough approximation of the average school size in the 

United States. The average elementary school in 2003–04 enrolled 476 students and the average school at 

any grade level in the United States enrolled 521 students.47 

The base number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff provided through state and local 

funds was similar in Title I and non–Title I schools. 

Overall, Title I and non–Title I schools employed similar numbers of FTE staff per 500 students 

enrolled (Exhibit 55). This finding holds not only in the comparison across all schools combined but also 

 

47 See NCES, Digest of Education Statistics 2005,Table 93, 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/xls/tabn093.xls. 
Chapter IV 84 

in the comparison across elementary and high schools. However, like the findings on per student 

personnel expenditures, non–Title I middle schools had significantly more FTE staff funded through 

state and local resources than Title I middle schools (48.1 and 43.0 FTE per 500 students enrolled, 

respectively). This difference is largely due to a higher number of teachers and noninstructional staff 

employed in non–Title I compared with Title I middle schools. 

Exhibit 55 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: Number of FTE Staff per 

School of 500 Students in Title I and Non–Title I Schools, by Grade Level, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: In an average-size Title I school of 500 students, state and local funds supported 46.4 FTE 

staff, including 28.8 teachers, 5.0 teacher aides, and 12.6 noninstructional staff. 

* Indicates that the number of FTE staff is significantly different from the corresponding number of FTE staff in 

Title I schools at the same grade level (p < 0.05). 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
Chapter IV 85 

School personnel expenditures per student by poverty level 

Across all schools, state and local personnel spending per student was similar in 

the highest- and lowest-poverty schools. 

In particular, state and local personnel spending per student in the elementary and high schools, and in 

all schools combined, did not significantly vary between the highest- and lowest-poverty schools (see 

Exhibit 56). However, state and local personnel spending per student in the lowest-poverty middle 

schools was significantly higher than in the highest-poverty middle schools. 

Exhibit 56 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel Expenditures 

per Student in Highest- and Lowest-Poverty Schools, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: Across all schools, per-pupil expenditures on instructional staff from state and local 

resources were $3,502 in the highest-poverty schools and $3,622 in the lowest-poverty schools. 

* Indicates that the amount is significantly different from the corresponding amount in the highest-poverty schools 

at the same grade level (p < 0.05).

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 

Although the difference in state and local personnel spending per student between the highest- and 

lowest-poverty high schools appears large ($5,370 and $4,608, respectively), this difference was not 

statistically significant; it should be noted that the sample sizes for high schools and middle schools were 

relatively small. 

A similar analysis that included only Title I schools yielded similar results (see Appendix Exhibit B.19). 
Chapter IV 86 

School staffing levels by school poverty level 

Overall, the base number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff provided through state 

and local funds was similar in the highest- and the lowest-poverty schools. 

However, the highest-poverty schools had a larger number of teacher aides than the 

lowest-poverty schools. 

Overall and by grade level, the highest- and the lowest-poverty schools had similar numbers of FTE staff 

per 500 students enrolled (see Exhibit 57). The base total numbers of staff supported by state and local 

funds in the highest-poverty and the lowest-poverty schools were 46.9 FTE and 45.2 FTE, respectively. 

The highest- and lowest-poverty schools within the elementary, middle, and high school categories 

likewise showed similar base resources in terms of total number of staff, including total number of 

instructional staff. Although the total number of base instructional staff supported by state and local 

funds was similar in the highest- and the lowest-poverty schools, the highest-poverty schools, on 

average, had more teacher aides than the lowest-poverty schools (5.1 FTE teacher aides vs. 3.8 FTE 

teacher aides). At the middle school level, state and local funds supported fewer teachers (27.8 FTEs) in 

the highest-poverty middle schools than in the lowest-poverty middle schools (31.3 FTEs). 

Exhibit 57 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: Number of FTE Staff per School of 

500 Students in High- and Low-Poverty Schools, by Grade Level, 2004–05 

Exhibit reads: For an average-size school of 500 students, the highest-poverty schools had the same 

number of teachers as the lowest-poverty schools (29.2 FTE and 29.0 FTE, respectively), as well as a 

relatively similar total number of staff (46.9 FTE and 45.2 FTE, respectively). 

* Indicates that the number of FTE staff is significantly different from the corresponding number of FTE staff in the 

highest-poverty schools at the same grade level (p < 0.05). 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
Chapter IV 87 

Teacher characteristics and school spending by school poverty level 

The similarity in base funding across most Title I and non–Title I schools does not necessarily mean that 

students in these schools have teachers with similar characteristics. 

Teachers in the highest-poverty schools tended to have less experience, were less 

likely to have an advanced degree (master’s degree or higher), and had lower 

salaries than teachers in the lowest-poverty schools. 

While state and local spending was similar in the highest- and lowest-poverty schools, there were some 

differences in the characteristics of teachers in these schools. On average, the highest-poverty schools 

employed teachers with less teaching experience (12.4 years) than the lowest-poverty schools (14.7 years) 

(see Exhibit 58). Similarly, the proportion of teachers with fewer than three years of teaching experience 

was twice (14 percent) that of the lowest-poverty schools (7 percent). The highest-poverty schools also 

contained a significantly lower portion of teachers with a master’s degree or higher (44 percent) than the 

lowest-poverty schools (58 percent). Because these differences in experience and educational preparation 

are commonly often related to salary differences, the average teacher in the lowest-poverty schools 

received a salary that was 11 percent higher than that paid to teachers in the highest-poverty schools 

($47,711 vs. $43,174). However, the lowest-poverty and highest-poverty schools did not differ in their 

student-to-teacher ratio, percentage of secondary English and mathematics teachers with a degree in the 

field they teach, and their total spending on school personnel. 

Exhibit 58 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: 

Instructional Staff in the Highest-Poverty and Lowest-Poverty Schools, 2004–05 

Highest-Poverty Schools Lowest-Poverty Schools

Per-student expenditures on instructional staff a $3,502 $3,622 

Ratio of students to all teachers a 19.0 18.6 

Average teacher salary a $43,174* $47,711 

Average years of teaching experience b 12.4* 14.7 

Percent of teachers with fewer than three years of 

teaching experience b 14%* 7% 

Percent of teachers with master’s degree or higher b 44%* 58% 

Percent of secondary English and mathematics 

teachers with a degree in the field that they teach b 56% 60% 

Exhibit reads: The highest-poverty schools had an average per-student instructional expenditure of 

$3,502 from state and local revenues, compared with $3,622 in the lowest-poverty schools. 

* Indicates that the amount for the highest-poverty schools is significantly different from the amount for the 

lowest-poverty schools (p < 0.05). 

a Source: Payroll data from sample districts. Average teacher salary calculations included all regular classroom 

teachers and special education teachers funded through state and local funds; the calculations did not include 

resource teachers or special education resource teachers (n=738 schools, including 245 lowest-poverty schools 

and 493 highest-poverty schools). 

b Source: NLS-NCLB, teacher survey (n=93 to 288 lowest-poverty schools and 298 to 627 highest-poverty 

schools). 
Chapter IV 88 

WHAT TITLE I ADDS TO SCHOOL PERSONNEL RESOURCES 

This section of the report examines what Title I added to school spending and staffing, in Title I schools 

overall and in different types of Title I schools, including elementary and secondary schools, highest- and 

lowest-poverty schools, schoolwide and targeted assistance schools, and schools identified for 

improvement. We first examined school-level personnel expenditures and then the numbers of teachers, 

aides, and other staff who were added in a typical-sized school. 

School personnel expenditures 

This analysis compared Title I school-level personnel expenditures per low-income student with the base 

amount of state and local school-level personnel expenditures per student. The analysis implicitly 

assumed that each school distributed its state and local school-level personnel resources equally across all 

students; thus, the amount spent on the average student was identical to the amount spent on each 

low-income student. While this assumption may not be true, it permitted an examination of what 

Title I added to school-level resources (to provide additional support for at-risk students) in different 

types of schools and as a percentage of the average per-student resources available before the addition of 

Title I funds. Title I spending per low-income student was examined because Title I funds are allocated 

to schools on the basis of the numbers of low-income students in order to target more of the funds to 

schools with the greatest needs. 

Title I added $408 per low-income student to personnel expenditures, representing a 

9 percent increase over base state and local per student spending on school 

personnel. 

In 2004–05, the average Title I school spent $4,559 per student (across all students in the school) on 

school personnel, excluding Title I funding. Title I added $408 per low-income student to school 

personnel spending on average, equivalent to a 9 percent increase over the base-level of personnel 

expenditures (see Exhibit 59). 

The amount that Title I added to personnel expenditures was highest in elementary 

schools and lowest in high schools, but it did not vary significantly by school 

poverty level, type of Title I program, or school identification status. 

Title I added $523 per student to the base level of personnel expenditures in elementary schools (a 

12 percent increase) compared with $354 in middle schools (a 9 percent increase) and $229 in high 

schools (a 5 percent increase). 

In the highest-poverty schools, across all grade levels, Title I personnel expenditures per low-income 

student were not significantly different from those in lowest-poverty schools.48 However, for elementary 

 

48 When these figures are compared with the findings in Chapter II (e.g., Exhibit 22), the Title I allocations per 

low-income student show larger disparities by school poverty level than in the personnel expenditure analysis shown in 

this chapter. Several factors may contribute to this difference. First, personnel expenditures are a subset of total 

expenditures, and it is possible that non-personnel expenditures, which we were not able to measure at the school level, 

may vary more by school poverty level than the personnel expenditures examined in this chapter. Second, the personnel 

expenditures reported in this chapter were based on actual salaries for staff assigned to each school and benefits that 

were estimated based on district average rates (expressed as a percentage of salaries), which may not reflect how 

personnel expenditures were actually charged against schools’ Title I allocations in each district (districts are permitted to 

charge personnel expenditures against Title I allocations using either actual or average compensation levels). Third, the 

school samples for the two analyses were different: the allocations analysis in Chapter II was based on all schools in the 
Chapter IV 89 

schools, Title I added a significantly higher amount of personnel resources in the lowest-poverty schools 

($825 per low-income student, an 18 percent increase) than in the highest-poverty schools ($449 per 

low-income student, a 10 percent increase) (see Exhibit C.41).49

Exhibit 59 

Amount That Title I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditures, 

by Type of Title I School, 2004–05 

Base School-Level 

Personnel 

Expenditures 

per Student 

Amount Added 

per Low-income 

Student Through 

Title I 

Percentage 

Added per 

Low-income 

Student Through 

Title I 

All Title I schools (n=885) $4,559 $408 +9% 

School grade level 

Elementary schools (n=609) $4,486 $523 +12% 

Middle schools (n=148) $4,137 $354a

 +9% 

High schools (n=104) $4,931 $229a

 +5% 

School poverty level 

Highest-poverty (75% or more) (n=501) $4,582 $402 +9% 

Lowest-poverty (less than 35%) (n=76) $4,992 $475 +9% 

School poverty level for elementary schools

Highest-poverty (75% or more) (n=365) $4,428 $449 +10% 

Lowest-poverty (less than 35%) (n=60) $4,682 $825b +18% 

Type of Title I program 

Schoolwide programs (n=616) $4,478 $395 +9% 

Targeted assistance programs (n=189) $4,718 $464 +10% 

School identification status 

Title I schools identified for improvement 

(n=354) $4,806 $387 +8% 

Title I non-identified schools (n=482) $4,417 $421 +10% 

Exhibit reads: Title I spending on school personnel added $408 per low-income student, a 

9 percent increase over the base level of personnel expenditures ($4,559). 

Notes: a indicates that the amount added through Title I was significantly different from the value for 

elementary schools (p < 0.05). b

 indicates that the amount added through Title I was significantly different 

from the value for highest-poverty elementary schools. Other differences between groups were not 

statistically significant.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 

 sample districts (8,564 Title I schools), while the personnel expenditures analysis in this chapter was based on the 

subsample of schools that were selected for more in-depth data collection and analysis (885 Title I schools). 49 Sample sizes for the lowest-poverty middle and high schools were not sufficient to run the same analysis for these 

levels. 
Chapter IV 90 

The amount of personnel resources per low-income student added through Title I funds was not 

significantly different in schoolwide vs. targeted assistance programs or in schools identified for 

improvement vs. non-identified schools. 

Additional school staff funded by Title I 

To compare the numbers of Title I-funded staff provided in different types of schools on a consistent 

basis, this analysis examines the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff per school based on an 

average enrollment size of 500 students. 

In an average-size 

Title I school, 

Title I added 

approximately 

two teachers and 

one teacher aide. 

In an average-size 

Title I school with 

500 students, Title I added 

3.5 additional FTE staff, 

including 1.9 FTE teachers, 

1.2 FTE teacher aides, and 

0.4 FTE noninstructional staff. 

The addition of Title I staff 

resulted in a 7 percent increase 

in the average number of 

teachers (from 28.8 to 30.7), a 

24 percent increase in the 

number of teacher aides, and a 

3 percent increase in 

noninstructional staff 

(see Exhibit 60). 

At the elementary level, 

Title I added an average 

of 2.3 teachers and 

1.6 teacher aides in an 

average-size school. 

Title I supported a larger number of staff in elementary schools (4.3 FTEs) than in middle schools 

(2.4 FTEs) or high schools (1.1 FTEs) (see Exhibit 61). The mix of Title I staff also varied between 

elementary and secondary schools: in elementary schools, teacher aides accounted for 37 percent of 

Title I staff (1.6 out of 4.3 FTEs), whereas in middle schools and high schools, aides accounted for 

19 percent of all Title I staff (see Exhibit 62). Noninstructional staff accounted for a higher proportion 

of Title I staff at the secondary level (19 percent of Title I staff in high schools, compared with 9 percent 

in elementary schools. 

Exhibit 60 

Number of FTE Staff per School of 500 Students 

in Title I Schools, Before and After the Addition 

of Title I Funds, 2004–05

Exhibit reads: In an average-size Title I school of 500 students, 

Title I resources added 3.5 additional full-time equivalent (FTE) 

including 1.9 FTE teachers and 1.2 FTE teacher aides.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records (n=885 schools). 
Chapter IV 91 

In the highest-poverty Title I schools, Title I added approximately 2.4 teachers and 

1.3 teacher aides per school of 500 students. 

Title I funds added more staff (4.4 FTEs) in the highest-poverty schools than in the lowest-poverty 

schools (1.7 FTEs). The number of Title I teachers added in the highest-poverty schools (2.4 FTEs) was 

more than double the number added in the lowest-poverty schools (0.9 FTE). Noninstructional staff 

accounted for a higher proportion of Title I staff in the highest-poverty schools (16 percent, vs. 

4 percent in the lowest-poverty schools). 

In Title I schoolwide programs, Title I funds added a total of 4.0 FTEs, compared with 2.6 FTEs in 

targeted assistance programs. The number of teachers added in schoolwide programs (2.2 FTEs) was 

also slightly higher than in targeted assistance programs (1.5 FTEs). The percentage of noninstructional 

staff also differed significantly between schoolwide and targeted assistance programs (12 percent vs. 

6 percent). 

In schools that were identified for improvement, the total number of Title I staff was not statistically 

different from schools that were not identified for improvement. However, non-identified schools had 

more Title I–funded teacher aides (1.4 FTEs) than identified schools (0.6 FTE). Similarly, teacher aides 

accounted for 38 percent of Title I staff in non-identified schools, twice their proportion of Title I staff 

in identified schools (19 percent). 
Chapter IV 92 

Exhibit 61 

Number of FTE Staff Added Through Title I Funds, 

per School of 500 Students, by School Grade Level, 2004–05 

Total Staff Teachers Teacher 

Aides 

Noninstructional 

Staff 

All Title I schools (n=885) 3.5 1.9 1.2 0.4 

School grade level 

Elementary schools (n=609) 4.3 2.3 1.6 0.4 

Middle schools (n=148) 2.4a 1.6a

 0.5a 0.3 

High schools (n=104) 1.1a 0.7a

 0.2a 0.2a

School poverty level 

Highest poverty (75% or more) (n=501) 4.4 2.4 1.3 0.7 

Lowest poverty (less than 35%) (n=76) 1.7b 0.9 b 0.7b 0.1b

Type of Title I program 

Schoolwide programs (n=616) 4.0 2.2 1.3 0.5 

Targeted assistance programs (n=189) 2.6c

 1.5c 0.9 0.2c

School identification status 

Title I schools identified for improvement 

(n=354) 3.2 2.1 0.6 0.5 

Title I non-identified schools (n=482) 3.6 1.9 1.4d 0.3d

Exhibit reads: In an average-size Title I school of 500 students, Title I resources added a total of 

3.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, including 1.9 teachers, 1.2 teacher aides, and 0.4 noninstructional 

staff. 

Notes: a indicates the FTE in a particular staffing category (e.g., teachers) was significantly different from the 

FTE for elementary schools (p < 0.05). b indicates the FTE is significantly different from the FTE for the 

highest-poverty schools (p < 0.05). c indicates FTE is significantly different from the FTE for schoolwide 

programs (p < 0.05). d indicates the FTE is significantly different from the FTE for identified schools 

(p < 0.05). Other differences between groups were not statistically significant. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
Chapter IV 93 

Exhibit 62 

Distribution of FTE Staff Added Through Title I Funds, 

by Type of Title I School, 2004–05 

Teachers Teacher Aides Noninstructional 

Staff 

All Title I schools (n=885) 56% 34% 11% 

School grade level 

Elementary schools (n=609) 53% 37% 9% 

Middle schools (n=148) 67% 19%a

 14% 

High schools (n=104) 62% 19%a 19%a

School poverty level 

Highest poverty (75% or more) (n=501) 54% 30% 16% 

Lowest poverty (less than 35%) (n=76) 56% 40% 4%b

Type of Title I program 

Schoolwide programs (n=616) 55% 33% 12% 

Targeted assistance programs (n=189) 60% 34% 6%c

School identification status 

Title I schools identified for improvement 

(n=354) 65% 19% 16% 

Title I non-identified schools (n=482) 53% 38%d 9%d

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent of the FTE staff added through Title I funds were teachers. 

Note: Row totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Notes: a indicates the percentage of Title I staff in a particular staffing category (e.g., teachers) was 

significantly different from the percentage for elementary schools (p < 0.05). b indicates the percentage is 

significantly different from the percentage for the highest-poverty schools (p < 0.05). c indicates 

the percentage is significantly different from the percentage for schoolwide programs (p < 0.05). d

indicates the percentage is significantly different from the percentage for identified schools (p < 0.05). 

Other differences between groups were not statistically significant. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
Chapter IV 94 

DISCUSSION

This chapter explored the amounts and types of personnel resources made available to schools through 

state and local funding sources, and it examined the extent to which Title I funding added to these base 

resources. In 2004–05, base state and local personnel resources available to Title I and 

non-Title I schools were similar, using personnel expenditures per student or staffing levels as an 

indicator. Title I funds added about 9 percent to state and local personnel spending per low-income 

student. However, there were no differences in what Title I added in school personnel to schools based 

on school poverty, type of Title I program (schoolwide or targeted assistance program), or whether the 

school was identified for improvement. 

Several differences emerged in terms of funding by grade level and teacher experience. Specifically, more 

Title I funding was added per low-income student enrolled in elementary schools than in the middle or 

high schools. 

Perhaps of most significance were the differences in teacher characteristics and compensation across 

schools. When compared with teachers in the lowest-poverty schools, teachers in the highest-poverty 

schools were less experienced, were less likely to have advanced degrees, and had lower average salaries. 
 

Chapter V 95 

V. CONCLUSION 

NCLB, the latest reauthorization of ESEA, contains a blend of requirements, incentives, and resources 

to help schools and districts close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. 

Effectively targeting resources to the students with the greatest needs is the central focus of the law’s 

fiscal provisions. This report describes the implementation of the targeting and resource allocation 

provisions under NCLB for six federal programs.50 This chapter presents a summary of the primary 

findings of the study. For the most part, the findings are based on data gathered for the 2004–05 school 

year as part of the NLS-NCLB. In addition, some of the analyses are based on comparisons between the 

NLS-NCLB data and similar data collected during the 1997–98 school year as part of the Study of 

Education Resources and Federal Funding (SERFF), the U.S. Department of Education’s previous study 

of targeting and resource allocation of federal programs, and data from the NCES Common Core of 

Data. 

1. How are federal funds distributed among districts and schools in relation to poverty level, 

school grade level, and schools identified for improvement? 

Federal education programs were more strongly targeted to high-poverty districts than were local 

and state funds. While the highest-poverty districts received higher levels of federal and state 

revenues, they received substantially lower levels of revenue from local sources, resulting in lower 

total revenues per student. 

The programs studied in this report differed substantially in the numbers of districts and schools 

they reached. Formula grants generally reached a larger proportion of districts and schools, while 

discretionary grant funds were typically distributed to a smaller number of grantees. Title I and Title 

II, the two largest formula programs in the study, reached almost all of the nation’s school districts 

(93 and 99 percent, respectively). At the other end of the scale, Reading First, CSR, and Section 

1003(a), all discretionary grants, reached 8 to 10 percent of the school districts. Title III and Perkins 

Vocational Education reached 41 and 51 percent of the districts in the nation, respectively. 

Although most federal program funds, including Title I, were generally targeted to schools and 

districts with the greatest needs, the level of targeting varied across programs, reflecting the nature of 

the different targeting provisions specified under the law. Section 1003(a), Reading First, and CSR 

provided the largest share of funds to the highest-poverty districts (73, 58, and 57 percent, 

respectively), which enrolled 49 percent of the nation’s poor school-age children. For Title I, over 

50 percent of funds went to the highest-poverty districts, about the same as their share of poor 

children. For Title II and Title III, the share of funds allocated to the highest poverty quartile of 

districts was less than their share of poor children. 

Under some federal programs, funds are allocated to individual schools as well as being used to 

provide districtwide services. In 2004–05, districts allocated 74 percent of Title I, 83 percent of 

Reading First, and 79 percent of CSR funds to individual schools. Title I funds reached 56 percent 

of the nation’s public schools received Title I funds, while the much smaller Reading First and CSR 

programs reached 1 to 2 percent of the schools (Reading First funds reached 4 percent of all 

elementary schools). High-poverty schools (schools with over 50 percent of students eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunches) received a large majority of Reading First (95 percent), CSR (83 percent), 

 

50 Five of the six programs are part of NCLB, while a sixth (Perkins Vocational Education State Grants) is implemented 

under a separate law. 
 

Chapter V 96 

and Title I funds (76 percent). Elementary schools received all of the Reading First funds, a majority 

of Title I funds, and about half of CSR funds. 

Focusing just on Title I, more than 90 percent of the highest-poverty schools received Title I funds 

in 2004–05. Elementary schools were more likely to receive Title I funds than were secondary 

schools; elementary schools also received more Title I dollars per low-income student. Schools 

identified for improvement were more likely to receive Title I funds than non-identified schools, but 

they received fewer Title I dollars per low-income student. 

2. Have Title I funding patterns changed since the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA)? 

The 2001 reauthorization and the addition of new funding formulas were intended to target more 

funds to the highest-poverty districts. However, despite efforts to target more funds to high-poverty 

districts by allocating an increasing share of the funds through the Targeted and Incentive Grants 

formulas, the targeting of Title I funds to districts changed only marginally between 1997–98 and 

2004–05. The highest-poverty districts received 52 percent of total Title I funds in 2004–05, 

compared with 50 percent in 1997–98, while the lowest-poverty districts saw their share of funds 

decline from 8 to 6 percent over the same period. The distribution of poor children remained 

unchanged during this period. 

While the shares of Title I dollars going to districts across the poverty levels did not change 

substantially between 1997–98 and 2004–05, the highest-poverty districts received more 

Title I dollars per pupil than the lowest-poverty districts. These findings may be attributed to the 

substantial growth in Title I funds among the highest-poverty (57 percent) compared with the 

lowest-poverty districts (13 percent), while there was a relatively modest growth in the numbers of 

poor children in these two categories of districts (4 vs. 7 percent). The growth in funding for the 

highest-poverty districts largely reflects the overall growth in appropriations during this period 

(51 percent), and districts in the middle two poverty quartiles received similar funding increases. 

While federal funds appeared to be targeted to high-poverty districts and schools, Title I funding per 

low-income student in the highest-poverty schools remained unchanged between 1997–98 and 

2004–05. Although total Title I funding for these schools grew, the increase basically kept pace with 

the increase in the number of low-income students, resulting in essentially no change in 

Title I funding per low-income student. Finally, the highest-poverty schools continued to receive 

smaller allocations per low-income student than the lowest-poverty schools. 

3. How do districts use Title I and other federal funds? 

Federal program funds were mainly used for instruction. Across the six federal programs studied, 

districts used from 51 to 75 percent of the funds for instruction, which included hiring of 

instructional staff, paying for instructional materials and equipment, and providing other 

instructional services. The programs with the highest level of spending on instruction were Title I, 

Title III, and Perkins (72 to 75 percent). Instructional staff accounted for more than half of district 

expenditures under Title II, Title I, and Title III (63, 59, and 55 percent, respectively). Other 

instructional expenditures were highest under Perkins (45 percent) and Section 1003 (31 percent); for 

Perkins this mainly consisted of instructional materials and technology. Instructional support and 

student support accounted for a relatively large share of the funds under Section 1003 (42 percent) 

and CSR (39 percent), which seems consistent with the focus on school improvement and reform 

intended for these two programs. 
 

Chapter V 97 

The six federal programs provided $1.8 billion to support professional development in 2004–05, 

based on fiscal records, with Title I providing more than half of these funds ($1.0 billion), followed 

by Title II ($518 million). However, these figures likely underestimate spending on professional 

development, because district accounting systems do not always clearly identify such expenditures. A 

survey of Title II district coordinators suggested that districts actually spent $959 million in 

Title II funds for professional development, a figure more than 80 percent higher than the estimate 

of $529 million obtained from fiscal records. 

4. How are Title I funds used at the school level? How does the spending pattern differ across 

Title I schools? 

Of Title I funds spent on school personnel resources, on average, almost 90 percent were spent on 

instructional staff. Of this amount, over four-fifths were spent on teachers and the rest on teacher 

aides. Noninstructional personnel spending (12 percent) went toward instructional support staff such 

as librarians and counselors (7 percent) and program administrators (5 percent). The highest-poverty 

Title I schools tended to spend proportionately more of their Title I funds on instructional support 

and proportionately less on instructional staff, compared with the lowest-poverty Title I schools. 

Similarly, schools identified for improvement and schoolwide programs also spent relatively more of 

their Title I funds on support staff and less on instructional staff, although instructional staff still 

accounted for the large majority of Title I personnel expenditures in all types of schools. 

5. How have Title I spending patterns on instructional staff changed since the 2001 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? 

Title I schools decreased their reliance on Title I teacher aides in recent years. The 

full-time-equivalent (FTE) number of Title I teachers increased by almost 50 percent between 

1997–98 and 2004–05, while the FTE number of Title I teacher aides decreased by 10 percent. The 

ratio of Title I teacher aides to Title I teachers declined by about 40 percent from just over 1 aide per 

teacher to about 0.6 of an aide per teacher during this period. 

6. How do school districts and schools use the flexibility option in the law to combine and use 

federal funds? 

The total number of schoolwide programs has increased dramatically, from 5,050 in 1994–95 to 

31,445 in 2004–05, reflecting the lowering of the eligibility threshold from 75 percent poverty 

originally to 40 percent under NCLB. 

Under the law, schoolwide programs may consolidate Title I funds with other federal, state, and local 

funds in order to support a comprehensive and integrated approach to improving the school’s 

instructional program. However, few districts (6 percent) that implemented Title I schoolwide 

programs reported that these programs actually consolidated Title I funds and other funding sources to 

support activities under the schoolwide program. 

Most commonly, districts reported that schoolwide programs coordinated their Title I funds with 

funds from other federal sources or state and local sources. Districts most commonly cited state 

accounting rules as a barrier to consolidation of funds in schoolwide programs. 
 

Chapter V 98 

7. How do state and local resources compare in Title I and non–Title I schools and across 

schools of different poverty levels?

The “comparability” requirement in the Title I program requires individual school districts to 

distribute their state and local resources equitably among their schools, so that the Title I resources 

added in high-poverty schools can be truly supplemental. While the present study does not have a 

sufficient sample of schools within any given district to examine whether the comparability 

requirement is being met within districts, we were able to compare average resource levels by school 

Title I status and poverty level across all schools in the study sample. 

Across all grade levels, Title I and non–Title I schools spent similar amounts of state and local funds 

on school personnel and funded similar numbers of FTE staff with these funds (before the addition 

of Title I funds). Similarly, the highest- and lowest-poverty schools did not differ significantly in 

their average personnel expenditures per student and number of FTE staff funded through state and 

local funds. However, teachers in the highest-poverty schools tended to have less experience, were 

less likely to have an advanced degree (master’s degree or higher), and had lower salaries, compared 

with teachers in the lowest-poverty schools. 

8. What does Title I add to school personnel resources, and how does this vary by school grade 

level, poverty level, and type of Title I program? 

Overall, Title I added $408 per low-income student (a 9 percent increase over base state and local 

resources) to school-level personnel resources. The amount that Title I added to personnel 

expenditures was highest in elementary schools and lowest in high schools, but it did not vary 

significantly by school poverty level, type of Title I program, or school identification status. 

In a typical Title I school, Title I added a total of 3.5 additional FTE staff, including 1.9 FTE 

teachers, 1.2 FTE teacher aides, and 0.4 FTE noninstructional staff. Title I supported a larger 

number of staff in elementary schools than in middle schools or high schools. Similarly, Title I funds 

added more staff to the highest-poverty schools than to the lowest-poverty schools. Title I funds 

also supported more staff in schoolwide programs than in targeted assistance programs. However, 

there was no significant difference in what Title I added to schools that were identified for 

improvement and schools that were not identified. 

The targeting of Title I funds is of particular importance because NCLB has revised the ways in which 

Title I funds are distributed, in part to target more funds to students with the greatest needs. It is 

commonly accepted that greater needs are found in schools with high concentrations of low-income 

children (Kennedy, Jung, & Orland, 1986; Orland, 1990; Wolf, 1977). Although the highest-poverty 

districts have seen an increase in their share of Title I funds, the highest-poverty schools continue to 

receive smaller Title I allocations per low-income student than do the lowest-poverty schools. 

Moreover, this gap between the highest- and lowest-poverty schools did not change between 

1997–98 and 2004–05. 

In general, federal funds were an important source of support to the highest-poverty districts and 

schools, and the majority of funds from the six federal programs studied were used for instruction. At 

the same time, neither the six federal programs studied here, nor all federal programs taken together, 

provided sufficient funding to make up for the greater access to local revenues available in the lowestpoverty districts in the United States. 
 

References 99 

REFERENCES 

Chambers, Jay G. (1981). “Cost and price level adjustments to state aid for education: A theoretical and 

empirical review.” In K. Forbis Jordan (ed.), Perspectives in State School Support Programs (Second 

annual yearbook of the American Educational Finance Association). Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger 

Publishing Co. 

Chambers, Jay G. (1999). Measuring Resources in Education: From Accounting Models to the Resource Cost Model 

Approach. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Chambers, Jay G. (1997). Measuring Geographic Differences in Public School Costs (working paper). 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Kennedy, Mary M., R.K. Jung, and M.E. Orland (1986). Poverty, Achievement, and the Distribution of 

Compensatory Education Services (Interim report from the National Assessment of Chapter 1). 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement. 

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Common Core of Data [Database]. Washington, D.C.: 

Author. Available from the National Center for Education Statistics CCD Web site, 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/. 

National Center for Education Statistics (2005). Digest of Education Statistics: 2005. Washington, D.C.: 

Author. 

New American Schools, School Funding Services (2003, July). State and Local Flexibility Options in No 

Child Left Behind. Alexandria, Va.: Author. 

Small Axe Educational Communications, Inc. (2002, January). Title I Report: Title I Changes in the 2001 

ESEA Reauthorization. Alexandria, Va.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education (2006, October). Improving Teacher Quality State Grants ESEA Title II, 

Part A, Non-Regulatory Guidance. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2007). National Assessment of Title I, Final Report: Volume I: 

Implementation, by Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, and Joseph McCrary (NCEE 2008-4012). 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2004). LEA and School 

Improvement Non Regulatory Guidance. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2002, September). No 

Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service (2007). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

Volume II—Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Interim Report, by Beatrice Birman, Kerstin Carlson 
 

References 100 

LeFloch, Amy Klekotka, Meredith Ludwig, James Taylor, Kirk Walters, Andrew Wayne, and 

Kwang-Suk Yoon. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service (2007). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

Volume III—Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report, by Kerstin Carlson LeFloch, Felipe 

Martinez, Jennifer O’Day, Brian Stecher, and James Taylor Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service (2007). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

Volume IV—Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services: Interim Report, by Brian Gill, 

Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Scott Naftel, Karen Ross, Mengli Song, and Georges Vernez. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service 

(2004). National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress, by Marsha Silverberg, 

Elizabeth Warner, Michael Fong, and David Goodwin. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service (2000). 

Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report, by Jay G. Chambers, Joanne 

Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

Wolf, A. (1977). Poverty and Achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. 
 

Appendix A 101 

APPENDIX A. 

DESCRIPTION OF NLS-NCLB METHODOLOGY 

This report is part of a series that is being produced collaboratively by the National Longitudinal Study 

of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and 

Teacher Quality Provisions Under NCLB (SSI-NCLB). The purpose of these two studies is to provide 

an integrated longitudinal evaluation of the implementation of No Child Left Behind by states, districts, 

and schools, focusing primarily on NCLB provisions in the following four areas: accountability, teacher 

quality, parental choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting and resource allocation. 

This report, which covers the targeting and uses of funds for six federal education programs, is based 

primarily on data from the NLS-NCLB. Although the NLS-NCLB collected longitudinal data 

(2004–05 and 2006–07) through surveys conducted at the district and school levels, the targeting and 

resource allocation data were collected for only one year (2004–05) because of the greater burden of this 

type of data collection. 

SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES

The nationally representative sample selected for the NLS-NCLB comprised 300 districts. The sampling 

frame included all districts with at least one public, regular school in the 2001 National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) school database. The sample was selected 

using a probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) scheme, in which the measure of size was district 

enrollment; 36 very large districts were selected with certainty. To ensure inclusion of enough schools 

identified for improvement under Title I, the study oversampled high-poverty districts, defined as those 

in the highest poverty quartile. District poverty quartiles were based on Census Bureau estimates of the 

number of school-age children and poor children living in each district (2002 Small Area Income and 

Poverty Estimates). The poverty quartiles were created by ranking all districts by the percentage of poor 

school-age children and then dividing these districts into quartiles, each of which included 25 percent of 

the school-age children. 

The school sample comprised 1,483 schools randomly sampled from strata within sampled districts. 

Title I schools, high-poverty schools, and elementary schools with Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) 

programs were oversampled. The Title I status of schools and the percentage of students eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunches were taken from the CCD. The eligibility threshold for the subsidized lunch 

program is lower than the official poverty definition. Elementary CSR schools were identified through 

the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory database on CSR schools. The sample of schools 

was designed so that, on average, two non-CSR schools, one CSR school, one middle school, and one 

high school were selected from each district. 

Of the 300 districts in the sample, all but three agreed to participate in the study. These three districts 

were replaced. Of the 1,483 schools in the sample, 36 refused to participate and were replaced. The 

following table compares the characteristics of the district and school samples with the characteristics of 

the universe of districts and schools based on CCD data. As intended, the sample contains higher 

proportions of high-poverty districts and schools than are found in the universe of districts and schools 

(see Exhibit A.1). 
 

Appendix A 102 

Exhibit A.1 

Characteristics of NLS-NCLB District and School Sample 

Compared With the Universe of Districts and Schools 

Sample Universe

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Districts, by poverty quartile (census poverty) 300 14,972 

Highest poverty quartile 163 54% 3,743 25% 

Second-highest poverty quartile 41 14% 3,743 25% 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 50 17% 3,743 25% 

Lowest poverty quartile 46 15% 3,743 25% 

Schools, by poverty level 1,502 83,298 

75–100% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 596 40% 11,282 13% 

50–74% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 363 24% 15,461 19% 

35–49% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 106 7% 12,844 15% 

<35% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 291 19% 33,884 41% 

Missing 146 10% 9,827 12% 

Schools, by Title I status 1,502 83,298 

Title I 1,163 77% 46,048 55% 

Non–Title I 259 17% 31,312 38% 

Missing 80 5% 5,938 7% 

Schools, by grade level 1,502 83,298 

Elementary schools 906 60% 50,597 61% 

Middle schools 298 20% 15,700 19% 

High schools 298 20% 17,001 20% 

The targeting and resource allocation component of the NLS-NCLB was primarily based on extant data 

files and documents maintained by districts and states. District allocations data for the six federal 

programs were gathered from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, yielding a 

response rate of 100 percent. Of the 300 participating districts in the sample, 288 provided budget and 

expenditure data files, 243 provided school-level personnel and payroll data for the select sample of 

schools, 273 provided school allocations data on the six federal programs, 215 provided data on uses of 

Title II funds, and 277 provided data on districts’ uses of transferability and flexibility provisions. The 

resulting response rates were between 72 and 96 percent for each data component (see Exhibit A.2). 
 

Appendix A 103 

Exhibit A.2 

Sample Sizes and Response Rates for NLS-NCLB

Sample size Responses 

Response 

Rate 

Surveys 

Districts 300 289 96% 

Schools 1,483 1,315 89% 

Targeting data requests 

District allocations data, requested from states 

plus District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 52 52 100% 

School allocations data, requested from 

districts 300 273 91% 

Resource allocation data requests 

District budget and expenditure data files, 

requested from districts 300 288 96% 

School-level personnel and payroll data files, 

requested from districts 300a 243 81% 

Data on uses of Title II, Part A funds, 

requested from districts 300 215 72% 

Data on uses of transferability and flexibility 

options, requested from districts 300 277 92% 

a

 Of the 300 districts containing 1,483 sample schools, 243 districts provided school-level personnel data for 

1,167 schools in the school sample (79 percent of the sample schools). 

The number of districts in the study sample that received specific federal program funds ranged from 

91 (Reading First) to 300 (Title II, Part A), and the number of districts that received funding and 

provided fiscal data (expenditure and budget data) ranged from 79 for Title I, Section 1003(a) to 266 for 

Title I, Part A (see Exhibit A.3). Although the response rates for districts that provided Section 1003 and 

Perkins fiscal data were low (62 and 66 percent, respectively), a ‘bias analysis’ comparing respondents 

that provided Section 1003 data to non-respondents did not indicate any significant differences in terms 

of district size, district poverty, minority enrollment, or urbanicity. Similarly, there appear to be no 

statistically significant differences between respondents that provided Perkins fiscal data and 

non-respondents. 
 

Appendix A 104 

Exhibit A.3 

Number of Responding Districts That Received Program Funds and 

Provided Fiscal Data 

Federal program Number of Districts 

Receiving Funds 

Number of Districts 

Receiving Funds and 

Providing Fiscal Data 

Title I, Part A 295 266 

Section 1003(a) 127 79 

Reading First 91 83 

CSR 97 82 

Title II, Part A 300 266 

Title III, Part A 217 180 

Perkins Vocational Education 211 140 

Of the 1,161 sample schools used in the analyses that were based on personnel and payroll data files 

provided by the sample districts (reported in Chapter IV), 886 were Title I schools and 242 were 

non-Title I schools; Title I status was unknown for the remaining 33 schools. Exhibit A.4 provides a 

more detailed breakdown of the responding schools by poverty rate, grade level, school improvement 

status, and type of Title I program.

Exhibit A.4 

Characteristics of Sample Schools for Which Districts Provided 

Personnel and Payroll Data 

All schools 1,161 

Title I status 

Non–Title I schools 242 

Title I schools 886 

Title I program 

Schoolwide programs 616 

Targeted assistance programs 190 

School poverty level 

75% or more 505 

Less than 35% 229 

Grade level 

Elementary schools 694 

Middle schools 229 

High schools 208 

School improvement status 

Schools identified for improvement 381 

Non-identified schools 686 
 

Appendix A 105 

In the targeting and resource allocation component, poverty indicators, if missing from the data gathered 

from districts, were supplemented with similar poverty measures from extant sources, specifically the 

CCD. Besides school and district demographics data (e.g., enrollment), which were supplemented with 

CCD data if missing, no other missing (or unsupplied) data were imputed in the targeting and resource 

allocation component. 

The study defined the urbanicity of a district by using the metropolitan status code (MSC) from the 

CCD, in which MSC 1 indicates a district that is primarily a principal city of a Core Based Statistical Area 

(CBSA, a recognized population nucleus); MSC 2 indicates a district that is within a CBSA but not 

primarily its principal city; and MSC 3 indicates a district that is not within a CBSA. For simplicity, the 

study used the following terminology: districts coded as MSC 1 were referred to as urban, districts coded 

as MSC 2 were referred to as suburban, and districts coded as MSC 3 were referred to as rural. Because 

the CCD did not have metropolitan status codes for schools, the study assigned a district’s MSC code to 

each school in that district. That is, if a district was classified as an urban district, all schools in this 

district were classified as urban schools. The same applied to schools in rural and suburban districts. 

In the grade level analysis, elementary, middle, and high school grade level definitions were consistent 

with the classifications in CCD. The secondary school category included middle and high schools. The 

study defined an elementary school as one that included grades PK to 3 as the lowest grade level and 

grades PK through 8 as the highest grade level. A middle school included grades 4 to 7 as the lowest 

grade level, and grades 4 through 9 as the highest grade level. A high school included grades 7 through 

12 as the lowest grade level, and grade 12 as the highest grade level. Schools that did not fall into above 

categories were classified as “other.” For example, a school with grades K through 12 was classified in 

the “other” category. 

We excluded certain categories of “districts” in calculating the amount of federal revenues as 

a percentage of total revenues that districts received (Exhibit 5). For example, we excluded districts that 

were closed, districts that had no associated schools reported or no reported students served, “irregular 

districts,” (e.g., school districts that serve administrative functions exclusively, or are administered 

directly by state or federal governments), and charter school districts. Many such “districts” (e.g., 

“irregular districts”) would not have census poverty information and therefore were excluded from the 

poverty quartile analysis. Because we excluded these districts, our analysis of the amount of federal 

revenues as a percentage of total district revenues is slightly different from the figures reported in NCES 

Digest of Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_162.asp), which 

presumably includes the universe of school districts in the nation. 

DATA COLLECTION

Data for the targeting and resource allocation component of the NLS-NCLB used in this report were 

gathered by means of requests for documents (RFDs) that were sent to state federal program directors 

(through the Council of Chief State School Officers), district federal program directors, and district fiscal 

services directors. Data were collected from school district offices in two phases. The first phase 

occurred between January and August of 2005 and included school allocations data on the six federal 

programs, data on the uses of Title II, Part A, funds, data on districts’ uses of transferability and 

flexibility provisions, school-level personnel data (for sample schools), and federal program budgets. The 

second phase occurred between November 2005 and February 2006 and included expenditure data files 

to supplement the budget and personnel data collected in the first phase. Data on state suballocations to 

school districts were collected from state departments of education between October 2004 and July 
 

Appendix A 106 

2005. Federal program budgets were obtained mainly through data extracted from districts’ consolidated 

applications and supplemental federal program applications, which collectively provided budget 

information on five federal programs (Title I, Title II, Title III, CSR, and Reading First). The analysis of 

Perkins expenditure patterns relied primarily on districts’ fiscal files because the study did not collect 

consolidated applications or program budgets for this program. The study first sought to gather these 

applications from the state department of education and then followed up with school districts if 

necessary data were missing from the state-provided documents. 

The NLS-NCLB also used mail surveys of district federal program coordinators, school principals, 

classroom teachers, and Title I paraprofessionals; survey administration began in October 2004 and was 

completed in March 2005. A second wave of data collection was conducted in the 2006–07 school year, 

but those data are not included in this report. Topics covered in the survey questionnaires were 

accountability systems, AYP and the identification of schools and districts for improvement, technical 

assistance, improvement strategies, the use of assessment results, Title I school choice and supplemental 

educational services, teacher quality, and professional development. Survey data used in this report 

include responses from districts about the consolidation of funds in schoolwide programs and responses 

from teachers about their years of experience and academic degrees. 

The SSI-NCLB relied on extant data and interviews with state education officials. Interviews were 

conducted in both the 2004–05 and 2006–07 school years and addressed topics related to state 

assessment and accountability systems, teacher quality and professional development, monitoring of 

supplemental educational service providers, and implementation of NCLB provisions related to English 

language proficiency. The extant data collection included the compilation of a national database of the 

2003–04 AYP status of all schools and of schools identified for improvement in 2004–05 based on data 

from state education agency Web sites and Consolidated State Performance Reports. This database 

contains 88,160 schools (including both Title I and non–Title I schools) in 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. The data on school improvement status were used in the analysis of allocation and 

expenditure patterns presented in this report. 

Analysis of the Uses of Federal Program Funds at the District Level 

To examine how local school districts used federal education program funds (Chapter III), the study 

team developed a federal program resource cost dataset based primarily on district-level year-end 

revenue and expenditure reports for the 2004–05 school year. In some cases it was necessary to utilize 

budget information from the districts’ 2004–05 consolidated applications for federal program funding to 

estimate how federal program funds were used. 

The district year-end expenditure reports generally included information on revenue sources (e.g., Title I, 

Reading First), program types (regular education vs. special education), function codes (e.g., 

administration vs. instruction), objects of expenditure (e.g., salaries, benefits, supplies), and, on occasion, 

school codes and job titles. The budget sections of the consolidated applications contained information 

similar to the expenditure files, but at times provided additional specifics on how the district planned to 

spend the program funds (e.g., number of teachers to be hired for a particular program, types of 

professional development activities to be implemented). 

 

In developing the resource cost dataset, the study team primarily used the data from district year-end 

expenditure reports, because they represent “actual” revenues and spending, which may deviate 

substantially from the budgets that represent revenues and expenditures that are planned or expected at 

the beginning of the school year. However, for districts that did not provide expenditure data but did 
 

Appendix A 107 

provide budget data, we used the budget data as the best available information on the uses of federal 

funds in those districts. 

Because accounting codes and expenditure classifications differ across states (and sometimes across 

districts within a state), the study team developed a set of common accounting codes to standardize the 

revenue, function, and object information. The resulting resource cost dataset was used to produce 

national estimates of district expenditures of federal funds in major functional categories, such as 

administration, instruction, and instructional support, as well as in specific areas such as professional 

development, parental involvement, and student support. 

Despite our efforts to develop a standardized dataset of expenditures for our nationally representative 

sample of school districts, accounting categories and definitions used by individual states and districts did 

not always clearly align with the functional spending categories examined in this study. For example, in 

California, the functional category of “supervision of instruction” includes a broad range of instructional 

support activities such as curriculum development, techniques of instruction, staff training, and 

providing guidance to teachers in the use of instructional materials. However, this category also includes 

several administrative and fiscal support activities such as planning and evaluation and salaries of 

accountants who provide supplemental services above the level provided by the business office. In 

addition, it may also include some ambiguous items such as “special project administration” and “staff 

with supervisory responsibilities,” which could either be administrative support or instructional support, 

depending on the specific responsibilities of those staff. Because most activities classified under 

“supervision of instruction” seemed more consistent with the definition of instructional support, we 

coded these expenditures under instructional support rather than under district administration. 

Analysis of Local and State Personnel Resources at the School Level 

The primary data sources used in the analysis presented in Chapter IV (What Title I Adds to State and 

Local Resources at the School Level) were the 2004–05 school personnel records collected from sampled 

school districts. These data files contained individual payroll and personnel information for each 

certificated and classified staff member in each sample school. Data included staff identification code, 

school code, job title or code, gross annual pay, percentage of full-time employment or number of paid 

hours, fringe benefits, and the full account code, including the fund sources that support the staff 

compensation. Because each district’s accounting and personnel codes may use different classifications 

and definitions, a set of common codes (e.g., job codes) were developed to standardize the personnel 

information from all sampled schools. The dataset also incorporated other school-level variables (such as 

enrollment, grade level, Title I status, and number of low-income students) that were collected through 

the NLS-NCLB principal survey. The resulting resource dataset was used to estimate school-level 

personnel expenditures from Title I funds and from state and local revenues

SAMPLE WEIGHTS FOR NLS-NCLB STUDY DATA

Respondent data were weighted to adjust for differences between the composition of the sample and the 

composition of the population of interest. These differences arose partly by design—for example, there 

were different sampling rates for high- and low-poverty districts. However, differences between the 

composition of the sample and that of the population also arose because of differences in cooperation 

rates. Not every district agreed to participate. Differences between the composition of the sample and 
 

Appendix A 108 

that of the universe may also have arisen because of various forms of undercoverage. Weights were used 

to compensate for all these differences between samples and populations. 

Two sets of weights were created for districts and schools: A weights and B weights. The A weights were 

used to compute enrollment weighted estimates (i.e., the percentage of students enrolled in districts or 

schools that have specific features); the B weights were used to compute estimates of the percentage of 

districts or schools. The calculation methods for the sets of weights for districts and schools are 

described below. 

District weights 

1. Base weights were computed as the reciprocal of the inclusion probability, corresponding to the 

original sample of 300. The frame included all districts with at least one public, regular school in 

the 2001 NCES CCD school database. The sample was selected with a probability proportional 

to size (PPS) scheme, in which the measure of size was district enrollment; however, 36 very 

large districts were selected with certainty. 

2. After the substitution of three noncooperating districts, revised base weights corresponding to 

the expanded sample of 303 districts were computed. 

3. Noncooperation-adjusted weights were computed. Because there were only 

three noncooperating districts, response rates approached 100 percent. The noncooperating cells 

were defined by crossing district certainty status (certainty, non-certainty) by region (Northeast, 

Midwest, South, West) and poverty status (high, low). Because all certainty districts responded, 

no non-response adjustment was made to them. 

4. A second adjustment was made for nonresponse, accounting for the cooperating districts that 

did not supply data. The nonresponding cells were defined by crossing district certainty status 

(certainty, non-certainty) by region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West) and poverty status (high, 

low). 

5. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to district outlier weights. 

6. The weights were raked to district totals on three dimensions: district size (four categories), 

region by poverty strata (eight categories), and Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories). 

With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after six iterations. It should be 

noted that raking of district weights was applied only to the non-certainty districts. The certainty 

districts maintained their original final weights. 

7. For districts that had a raked weight under 1.00, the raked weight was reset to 1.00 to produce 

the final raked B-weights for districts. 

8. The final raked weights were then multiplied by district enrollment. 

9. Finally, those weights were raked to enrollment totals on three dimensions: district size 

(four categories), region by poverty strata (eight categories), and Metropolitan Status Code 

2001 (three categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after 

eight iterations. These raked weights are the final raked district A-weights. 
 

Appendix A 109 

School weights 

1. School weights began with the Step 3 district weights. 

2. The conditional school base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the school inclusion 

probability after allowing for replacement schools, mergers, splits, and any other status changes. 

3. School base weights were computed by multiplying the district weights (Step 1) by the 

Step 2 school conditional weights. 

4. A Winsorization adjustment was applied to the outliers. 

5. The conditional school base weight was computed as the reciprocal of the school inclusion 

probability after allowing for replacement schools, mergers, splits, and any other status changes. 

6. The school base weight was computed by multiplying the Step 4 school weights by the 

Step 5 school conditional weights. 

7. Schools that were closed were given a weight of zero. 

8. A non-response adjustment was made to the weights for the remaining (open) schools, 

accounting for noncooperating schools. 

9. Using the noncooperating-adjusted school weight from Step 8, a second nonresponse 

adjustment was made for open schools. 

10. A Winsorization adjustment was made for extreme school weights. The result is called the 

preliminary B-weights. 

11. These weights were raked to school totals on four dimensions: school size (four categories), 

region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 2001 (three categories), and 

school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, convergence was satisfied after 

seven iterations. The result is called the preliminary raked B-weight. 

12. Within the smallest school size category (fewer than 400 students enrolled), some cases had 

weights Winsorized. The result is called outlier-adjusted raked B-weight. 

13. Finally, for those schools that had a raked weight under 1.00, the raked weights were reset to 

1.00, whereas the rest of the school sample maintained its weights from Step 11. The result is the 

final raked school B-weights. 

14. These raked B-weights were multiplied by school enrollment (obtained from the school-level 

CCD file). 

15. A Winsorization adjustment was made for extreme weights. The result is the preliminary 

A-weights. 

16. Finally, these weights were raked to school enrollment on four dimensions: school size 

(four categories), region by poverty strata (eight categories), Metropolitan Status Code 

2001 (three categories), and school type (four categories). With a tolerance level set at 0.001, 
 

Appendix A 110 

convergence was satisfied after eight iterations. The resulting weights are the final raked school 

A-weights. 

STANDARD ERRORS

The calculation of standard errors adjusted for the complex sampling design by using SAS statistical 

software, which makes use of the Taylor expansion method for calculating standard errors. 

The standard errors provide an indicator of the reliability of each estimate. For example, if all possible 

samples of the same size were surveyed under identical conditions, an interval calculated by adding and 

subtracting 1.96 times the standard error from a particular estimate would include the population value 

in approximately 95 percent of the samples. 

STATISTICAL TESTS AND MODELING

NLS-NCLB study data 

Analyses of study data presented in this report are mostly descriptive and involve comparisons of means 

or ratios between groups or over time. Sample-based comparisons discussed in the text of the report 

have been tested for statistical significance. Tests of significance for these analyses were conducted using 

the t statistic and a significance level of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha level, reflects the probability 

that a difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise simply because of sampling 

variation, if there were no true difference between groups in the population. The tests were conducted 

by calculating a t value for the difference between a pair of means and comparing that value with a 

published table of critical values for t . The following formula can be used to compute the t statistic for 

the difference between estimates for subgroups:

1 2

2 2

1 2

x x

t

SE SE

− = +

Where 1 x and 2 x are the estimated means or ratios being compared and SE1 and SE2 are their 

corresponding standard errors. 

Regression analysis 

District-level ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models were used to explore the association 

between district and school poverty on Title I allocations per low-income student. Given the small 

number of cases (districts and schools) in each district model, no control variable was included in these 

models. These within-district OLS analyses were meant only to supplement the descriptive findings and 

to allow an overview of possible relationships (positive, negative, or insignificant) that exist in district 

allocation practices, which could lead to further investigation in future studies. 
 

Appendix B 111 

APPENDIX B. 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit B.1 

Total Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, 

by District Poverty Quartile, by State, 2004–05 

Highest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

SecondHighest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

SecondLowest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

Lowest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

Overall $10,025 $9,101 $10,082 $10,836 

Alabama $8,118 $7,820 $7,971 $9,648 

Alaska $24,391 $20,015 $10,301 $10,493 

Arizona $8,683 $8,014 $7,967 $7,727 

Arkansas $8,584 $8,492 $8,068 $7,430 

California $9,532 $8,944 $8,840 $8,933 

Colorado $9,415 $8,609 $8,977 $8,879 

Connecticut $15,733 $14,847 $14,131 $13,252 

Delaware $11,207 $11,615 $12,557 $14,116 

District of Columbia $17,809 N/A N/A N/A 

Florida $9,200 $8,552 $9,049 N/A 

Georgia $9,675 $9,222 $9,421 $9,253 

Hawaii N/A N/A N/A $12,415 

Idaho $7,495 $7,068 $7,034 $7,123 

Illinois $9,652 $9,165 $9,471 $10,742 

Indiana $13,221 $11,880 $11,103 $11,079 

Iowa $21,201 $9,959 $9,393 $9,146 

Kansas $9,049 $8,941 $9,219 $8,923 

Kentucky $8,154 $8,226 $7,431 $7,816 

Louisiana $8,287 $8,313 $8,644 N/A 

Maine $11,704 $11,509 $11,459 $11,457 

Maryland $11,707 $11,112 $10,744 $11,993 

Massachusetts $15,586 $13,465 $13,286 $12,734 

Michigan $10,863 $9,541 $9,384 $9,996 

Minnesota $14,989 $11,746 $9,792 $9,996 

Mississippi $7,633 $7,046 $6,863 $6,807 

Missouri $9,406 $7,937 $8,451 $9,292 

Montana $11,275 $8,101 $8,403 $8,234 

continued next page 
 

Appendix B 112 

Exhibit B.1 (continued) 

Total Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, 

by District Poverty Quartile, by State, 2004–05 

Highest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

SecondHighest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

SecondLowest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

Lowest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

Nebraska $11,518 $9,992 $9,611 $9,533 

Nevada N/A $10,769 $8,369 $12,660 

New Hampshire $14,253 $10,030 $11,072 $11,801 

New Jersey $20,679 $18,173 $15,191 $14,849 

New Mexico $9,680 $8,639 $11,323 $8,436 

New York $16,451 $15,224 $16,058 $15,654 

North Carolina $8,303 $7,909 $8,804 $7,767 

North Dakota $12,907 $9,436 $8,669 $8,240 

Ohio $13,043 $10,298 $9,563 $9,727 

Oklahoma $7,808 $7,105 $6,616 $6,820 

Oregon $8,867 $8,775 $7,984 $8,344 

Pennsylvania $12,395 $10,851 $10,892 $11,913 

Rhode Island $13,401 $11,836 $12,545 $11,815 

South Carolina $9,127 $9,185 $8,284 $9,368 

South Dakota $12,593 $8,058 $8,086 $7,796 

Tennessee $7,827 $7,212 $6,699 $6,932 

Texas $8,578 $8,653 $8,448 $8,839 

Utah N/A $7,326 $6,316 $6,309 

Vermont $15,585 $15,243 $15,545 $14,886 

Virginia $10,016 $9,509 $9,591 $10,707 

Washington $8,977 $9,526 $8,629 $8,883 

West Virginia $9,729 $9,661 $9,230 N/A 

Wisconsin $12,242 $11,411 $11,072 $10,849 

Wyoming $27,837 $15,436 $13,077 $12,526 

Note: “N/A” indicates that state did not have any districts in that district poverty quartile. 

Sources: NCES, Common Core of Data, School District Finance Survey (F-33), 

2004–05 (n=13,754 districts); U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 (2003–04 school district poverty 

estimates). 
 

Appendix B 113 

Exhibit B.2 

Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, by State, 2004–05 

Federal 

Revenues 

State 

Revenues 

Local 

Revenues Total Revenues 

Overall $849 $4,617 $4,553 $10,018 

Alabama $913 $4,450 $2,690 $8,053 

Alaska $2,284 $6,629 $3,154 $12,067 

Arizona $975 $3,560 $3,597 $8,133 

Arkansas $915 $4,858 $2,651 $8,424 

California $913 $5,238 $2,974 $9,126 

Colorado $571 $3,845 $4,508 $8,924 

Connecticut $693 $5,065 $8,156 $13,914 

Delaware $950 $7,734 $3,744 $12,428 

District of Columbia $2,695 $0 $15,114 $17,809 

Florida $880 $3,758 $4,138 $8,777 

Georgia $868 $4,128 $4,428 $9,424 

Hawaii $1,294 $10,845 $276 $12,415 

Idaho $757 $4,033 $2,287 $7,077 

Illinois $779 $3,158 $6,060 $9,997 

Indiana $654 $5,143 $5,547 $11,344 

Iowa $561 $4,265 $4,621 $9,447 

Kansas $762 $5,034 $3,216 $9,012 

Kentucky $958 $4,626 $2,485 $8,068 

Louisiana $1,179 $3,881 $3,263 $8,323 

Maine $954 $4,474 $6,060 $11,489 

Maryland $777 $4,320 $6,378 $11,475 

Massachusetts $792 $5,656 $7,038 $13,486 

Michigan $591 $6,115 $3,202 $9,908 

Minnesota $583 $7,249 $2,572 $10,404 

Mississippi $1,118 $3,962 $2,283 $7,362 

Missouri $716 $2,991 $5,059 $8,766 

Montana $1,237 $3,910 $3,541 $8,688 

continued next page 
 

Appendix B 114 

Exhibit B.2 (continued) 

Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, by State, 2004–05 

Federal 

Revenues 

State 

Revenues 

Local 

Revenues Total Revenues 

Nebraska $970 $3,020 $5,768 $9,758 

Nevada $628 $2,284 $5,540 $8,452 

New Hampshire $622 $4,326 $6,539 $11,487 

New Jersey $662 $6,723 $8,689 $16,074 

New Mexico $1,475 $6,448 $1,225 $9,147 

New York $1,140 $6,925 $7,790 $15,855 

North Carolina $821 $4,737 $2,604 $8,163 

North Dakota $1,140 $3,282 $4,588 $9,010 

Ohio $729 $4,396 $5,195 $10,320 

Oklahoma $1,050 $3,746 $2,409 $7,205 

Oregon $806 $4,133 $3,514 $8,452 

Pennsylvania $658 $4,097 $6,825 $11,580 

Rhode Island $950 $4,866 $6,577 $12,393 

South Carolina $910 $4,033 $4,056 $8,999 

South Dakota $1,415 $2,794 $4,221 $8,429 

Tennessee $837 $3,146 $3,248 $7,231 

Texas $895 $2,990 $4,733 $8,617 

Utah $669 $3,544 $2,306 $6,518 

Vermont $435 $11,061 $3,801 $15,297 

Virginia $687 $4,039 $5,359 $10,085 

Washington $781 $5,479 $2,703 $8,963 

West Virginia $1,178 $5,752 $2,736 $9,665 

Wisconsin $653 $5,539 $4,924 $11,116 

Wyoming $1,265 $6,962 $5,228 $13,455 

Sources: NCES, Common Core of Data, School District Finance Survey (F-33), 

2004–05 (n=13,754 districts); U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 (2003–04 school district poverty 

estimates). 
 

Appendix B 115 

Exhibit B.3 

Distribution of Federal, State, and Local Revenues per Student, 

by Revenue Source and District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

Highest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

SecondHighest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

SecondLowest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

Lowest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

School-Age Children (aged 5–17) 

All children 25% 25% 25% 25% 

Poor children 49% 27% 16% 7% 

Total Revenues 

Federal, state, and local revenues 22% 23% 27% 28% 

State and local revenues 21% 22% 27% 30% 

Local revenues 15% 20% 28% 37% 

State revenues 26% 25% 26% 22% 

Federal revenues 38% 28% 23% 12% 

Federal Programs Included in This Study 

Title I, Part A 52% 27% 15% 6% 

Section 1003 73% 17% 7% 3% 

Reading First 58% 28% 10% 3% 

Comprehensive School Reform 57% 26% 13% 4% 

Title II, Part A 43% 26% 19% 12% 

Title III, Part A 45% 24% 19% 12% 

Perkins Vocational Education 43% 26% 20% 12% 

Sources: NCES, Common Core of Data, School District Finance Survey (F-33), 

2004–05 (n=13,754 districts); NLS-NCLB, state suballocations, 2004–05 (n=13,815 districts, including 

between 1,048 to 13,653 districts that received various federal program funds); U.S. Census Bureau, 

Census 2000 (2003–04 school district poverty estimates).
 

Appendix B 116 

Exhibit B.4 

District Revenues per Student, by Revenue Source 

and District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

All 

Districts 

Highest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

SecondHighest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

SecondLowest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

Lowest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

Total revenues $10,082 $10,025 $9,101 $10,082 $10,836 

State and local revenues $9,362 $8,576 $8,174 $9,362 $10,448 

Local revenues $4,837 $3,098 $3,556 $4,837 $6,475 

State revenues $4,525 $5,478 $4,618 $4,525 $3,973 

Federal revenues $721 $1,449 $928 $721 $388 

Sources: NCES, Common Core of Data, School District Finance Survey (F-33), 

2004–05 (n=13,754 districts); U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 (2003–04 school district poverty 

estimates).
 

Appendix B 117 

Exhibit B.5 

Average Amount of Federal Funds per Poor Child by District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

Title I, 

Part A 

Title I Secti

on 1003 

Reading 

First CSR Title II, Part A 

Title III, 

Part A Perkins 

All districts $1,499 $98 $228 $76 $357 $78 $90 

Poverty level 

Highest poverty 

quartile $1,579 $110 $199 $61 $321 $68 $75 

Second-highest 

poverty quartile $1,475 $73 $290 $98 $333 $74 $86 

Second-lowest 

poverty quartile $1,398 $73 $252 $127 $405 $97 $115 

Lowest poverty 

quartile $1,256 $121 $437 $232 $571 $128 $169 

Urbanicity 

Urban $1,699 $77 $194 $64 $370 $87 $91 

Suburban $1,381 $94 $299 $100 $364 $95 $92 

Rural $1,452 $120 $495 $218 $371 $42 $100 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=1,048 to 13,690 districts).
 

Appendix B 118 

Exhibit B.6 

Alternate Calculations of Per-Pupil Funding for Selected Federal Programs 

by District Poverty Level and Urbanicity, 2004–05 

Reading First Perkins Title III, Part A 

Average 

Allocation 

Per Poor 

Child 

Average 

Allocation Per 

Poor Child in 

Grades K–3 

Average 

Allocation 

Per Poor 

Child 

Average 

Allocation Per 

Poor Child in 

Grades 9–12 

Average 

Allocation 

Per Poor 

Child 

Average 

Allocation 

Per LEP 

Child 

All districts $228 $743 $90 $308 $78 $108 

Poverty level 

Highest poverty 

quartile $199 $651 $75 $275 $68 $108 

Second-highest 

poverty quartile $290 $944 $86 $289 $74 $111 

Second-lowest 

poverty quartile $252 $823 $115 $362 $97 $106 

Lowest poverty 

quartile $437 $1,543 $169 $503 $128 $106 

Urbanicity

Urban $194 $639 $91 $346 $87 $120 

Suburban $299 $972 $93 $316 $95 $133 

Rural $495 $1,662 $100 $343 $42 $120 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=1,048 to 13,690 districts). 
 

Appendix B 119 

Exhibit B.7 

Percentage of Districts Receiving Federal Program Funds, by Poverty Quartile and Urbanicity, 

2004–05 

Title I, 

Part A 

Title I Section 

1003 

Reading 

First CSR Title II, Part A 

Title III, 

Part A Perkins 

All districts 93% 11% 8% 8% 99% 41% 51% 

Poverty level 

Highest poverty 

quartile 96% 25% 19% 16% 99% 44% 61% 

Second-highest 

poverty quartile 96% 12% 11% 10% 99% 38% 55% 

Second-lowest 

poverty quartile 96% 8% 5% 6% 99% 37% 50% 

Lowest poverty 

quartile 85% 5% 1% 2% 99% 47% 40% 

Urbanicity 

Urban 98% 40% 27% 31% 99% 85% 69% 

Suburban 93% 11% 6% 6% 100% 50% 46% 

Rural 93% 8% 8% 6% 99% 27% 52% 

Source: NLS-NCLB, state suballocations (n=13,815 districts).
 

Appendix B 120 

Exhibit B.8 

Distribution of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Schools, 

by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,528 schools, including 8,640 Title I schools, 456 Reading 

First schools, and 290 CSR schools).
 

Appendix B 121 

Exhibit B.9 

Within-District Targeting for Title I Part A, Reading First, and CSR 

Title I Reading First CSR 

Average school allocation per low-income student

All schools $598 $337 $283 

Higher-poverty schools (above district‘s median 

poverty rate for funded schools) 

$634 $314 $277 

Lower-poverty schools (below district’s median 

poverty rate for funded schools) 

$558 $362 $287 

% difference +14% -13% -5% 

Distribution of districts by degree of within-district targeting

Larger allocations in higher-poverty schools 47% 36% 55% 

Similar allocations in higher- and lower-poverty schools 36% 0% 4% 

Smaller allocations in higher-poverty schools 18% 64% 41% 

Districts with larger allocations in higher-poverty schools

n of districts 136 13 15 

Average school allocation per low-income student $584 $329 $306 

 Higher-poverty schools $661 $345 $345 

 Lower-poverty schools $499 $314 $275 

 % difference +32% +10% +26% 

Districts with smaller allocations in higher-poverty schools

n of districts 42 20 16 

Average school allocation per low-income student $537 $340 $277 

 Higher-poverty schools $482 $305 $243 

 Lower-poverty schools $601 $379 $307 

 % difference -20% -20% -21% 

Average poverty rate in funded schools

All funded schools 60% 80% 80% 

Average poverty rate in higher-poverty schools 69% 86% 86% 

Average poverty rate in lower-poverty schools 52% 75% 74% 

Sample size

n of districts 242 33 33 

n of funded schools 8,536 410 246 

Note (1): This analysis examines the targeting of Title I, Reading First, and CSR within district boundaries, using 

data on school allocations reported by school districts that had two or more schools receiving grants in each grant 

program. 

Note (2): “Higher-poverty schools” are those that are above their district’s median poverty rate for schools funded 

under each grant program, and “lower-poverty schools” are those that are below their district’s median poverty 

rate for funded schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations. 
 

Appendix B 122 

Exhibit B.10 

Title I Allocations After Application of Various Steps in the Title I Formula Process, 

by State, FY 2007 

Before 

Application of 

SPPE, Hold 

Harmless, or 

State Minimum 

Provisions 

After 

Application of 

State Per Pupil 

Expenditure 

(SPPE) Factor 

After 

Application of 

Hold Harmless 

Provision 

After 

Application of 

State Minimum 

Provision 

After Final 

Adjustments 

(Final 

Allocations) 

Overall $12,706,341,397 $12,706,341,397 $12,706,341,397 $12,706,341,397 $12,706,341,120

Alabama 229,792,601 196,542,927 195,568,084 194,741,756 194,251,412

Alaska 19,567,456 25,050,786 27,896,137 33,914,024 34,024,598

Arizona 313,425,719 265,849,087 265,170,287 264,056,588 263,204,306

Arkansas 130,749,581 121,925,564 122,752,746 122,234,238 122,031,484

California 1,802,803,435 1,636,601,373 1,636,420,173 1,629,560,954 1,643,496,281

Colorado 130,060,609 124,220,137 124,884,634 124,362,216 123,928,378

Connecticut 88,969,375 112,438,172 112,160,687 111,694,627 111,879,468

Delaware 19,697,864 25,288,386 28,192,248 34,116,719 34,110,286

District of Columbia 35,549,079 46,083,980 46,165,829 45,965,991 46,025,737

Florida 675,845,449 589,965,120 592,638,262 590,100,907 589,157,126

Georgia 425,860,878 416,324,345 413,062,330 411,299,099 410,011,238

Hawaii 28,862,221 33,405,289 38,071,798 39,677,808 39,638,957

Idaho 43,432,199 36,660,026 38,750,242 41,329,313 41,327,392

Illinois 534,174,740 605,047,119 598,176,131 595,678,634 593,136,349

Indiana 209,627,851 234,229,766 230,868,975 229,881,823 230,085,248

Iowa 72,990,350 69,958,246 69,467,049 69,174,529 69,213,583

Kansas 82,692,556 86,209,482 85,790,749 85,425,396 88,061,074

Kentucky 191,715,213 185,082,683 184,673,184 183,889,616 185,854,297

Louisiana 293,297,320 278,550,506 278,769,557 277,577,686 277,649,636

Maine 31,443,332 40,138,562 42,754,398 43,781,402 43,870,320

Maryland 156,355,356 191,754,454 189,247,012 188,451,565 188,034,165

Massachusetts 168,528,886 212,540,783 213,128,780 212,246,871 211,607,027

Michigan 391,172,723 469,933,211 463,687,577 461,707,952 460,301,629

Minnesota 111,712,368 116,961,944 116,051,377 115,570,244 114,582,991

Mississippi 201,013,427 172,119,837 173,861,237 173,131,474 174,679,246

Missouri 221,265,002 205,304,413 203,392,785 202,554,409 201,451,741

Montana 30,916,759 31,100,623 35,653,465 38,680,895 38,634,910

continued next page 
 

Appendix B 123 

Exhibit B.10 (Continued) 

Title I Allocations After Application of Various Steps in the Title I Formula Process, 

by State, FY 2007 

Before 

Application of 

SPPE, Hold 

Harmless, or 

State Minimum 

Provisions 

After 

Application of 

State Per Pupil 

Expenditure 

(SPPE) Factor 

After 

Application of 

Hold Harmless 

Provision 

After 

Application of 

State Minimum 

Provision 

After Final 

Adjustments 

(Final 

Allocations) 

Nebraska $46,716,885 $50,980,740 $51,149,683 $51,098,526 50,662,136

Nevada 95,671,643 81,494,505 80,341,072 79,997,153 80,298,566

New Hampshire 21,243,062 24,553,590 27,774,658 34,706,166 34,248,186

New Jersey 196,688,052 249,596,783 252,500,806 251,452,629 252,408,502

New Mexico 109,829,121 99,932,014 104,004,181 103,565,239 103,846,928

New York 972,192,599 1,231,794,375 1,216,649,133 1,211,505,880 1,210,071,290

North Carolina 357,478,959 306,056,802 302,913,110 301,624,792 301,103,680

North Dakota 13,917,690 12,365,371 22,939,960 29,849,438 29,825,087

Ohio 404,995,726 458,527,811 452,715,640 450,794,005 449,254,685

Oklahoma 145,760,427 124,181,097 128,060,158 127,527,279 128,266,400

Oregon 121,618,888 122,146,606 122,762,793 122,241,929 121,425,431

Pennsylvania 418,866,007 528,274,609 520,896,356 518,708,921 516,459,476

Puerto Rico 581,934,435 466,787,108 459,308,735 457,315,408 455,589,077

Rhode Island 40,069,977 51,318,060 50,542,819 50,327,726 50,390,387

South Carolina 203,658,253 191,691,961 188,720,058 187,913,762 187,901,935

South Dakota 27,399,278 24,192,965 30,017,870 37,206,832 37,273,903

Tennessee 245,962,250 209,428,038 207,370,588 206,494,505 205,727,619

Texas 1,327,735,403 1,173,259,517 1,174,029,015 1,169,090,336 1,169,499,588

Utah 69,560,017 59,042,393 58,407,998 58,160,455 58,196,911

Vermont 10,555,298 13,325,718 21,676,460 27,202,671 27,198,995

Virginia 193,686,372 207,358,350 206,572,001 205,727,562 204,733,095

Washington 196,048,970 185,371,206 183,954,683 183,183,541 182,795,119

West Virginia 77,492,708 84,623,794 89,514,214 89,137,039 89,220,610

Wisconsin 174,314,363 206,371,511 203,624,193 202,743,307 201,600,575

Wyoming 11,422,668 14,379,645 22,639,481 27,959,560 28,094,060

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, formula allocations for Title I, 

Part A, for FY 2007. 
 

Appendix B 124 

Exhibit B.11 

Title I Allocations per Formula Child After Application of Various Steps in the 

Title I Formula Process, by State, FY 2007 

Before 

Application of 

SPPE, Hold 

Harmless, or 

State Minimum 

Provisions 

After 

Application of 

State Per Pupil 

Expenditure 

(SPPE) Factor 

After 

Application of 

Hold Harmless 

Provision 

After 

Application of 

State Minimum 

Provision 

After Final 

Adjustments 

(Final 

Allocations) 

Overall $1,382 $1,382 $1,382 $1,382 $1,381 

Alabama 1,380 1,181 1,175 1,170 1,169 

Alaska 1,233 1,579 1,758 2,138 2,127 

Arizona 1,402 1,189 1,186 1,181 1,179 

Arkansas 1,337 1,247 1,255 1,250 1,249 

California 1,408 1,279 1,278 1,273 1,277 

Colorado 1,309 1,251 1,257 1,252 1,251 

Connecticut 1,288 1,627 1,623 1,617 1,618 

Delaware 1,201 1,542 1,719 2,080 2,080 

District of Columbia 1,501 1,946 1,949 1,941 1,953 

Florida 1,462 1,276 1,282 1,276 1,276 

Georgia 1,391 1,360 1,349 1,343 1,342 

Hawaii 1,384 1,602 1,826 1,903 1,922 

Idaho 1,234 1,042 1,101 1,174 1,173 

Illinois 1,407 1,594 1,576 1,569 1,567 

Indiana 1,297 1,449 1,429 1,422 1,422 

Iowa 1,241 1,189 1,181 1,176 1,178 

Kansas 1,292 1,347 1,340 1,334 1,335 

Kentucky 1,374 1,326 1,323 1,318 1,316 

Louisiana 1,429 1,357 1,358 1,352 1,351 

Maine 1,223 1,561 1,663 1,703 1,702 

Maryland 1,409 1,728 1,706 1,699 1,697 

Massachusetts 1,303 1,643 1,647 1,640 1,639 

Michigan 1,351 1,623 1,601 1,595 1,592 

Minnesota 1,247 1,306 1,296 1,290 1,287 

Mississippi 1,400 1,199 1,211 1,206 1,204 

Missouri 1,331 1,235 1,224 1,219 1,215 

Montana 1,262 1,270 1,456 1,579 1,589 

continued next page 
 

Appendix B 125 

Exhibit B.11 (Continued) 

Title I Allocations per Formula Child After Application of Various Steps in the 

Title I Formula Process, by State, FY 2007 

Before 

Application of 

SPPE, Hold 

Harmless, or 

State Minimum 

Provisions 

After 

Application of 

State Per Pupil 

Expenditure 

(SPPE) Factor 

After 

Application of 

Hold Harmless 

Provision 

After 

Application of 

State Minimum 

Provision 

After Final 

Adjustments 

(Final 

Allocations) 

Nebraska $1,252 1,366 1,371 1,369 1,370 

Nevada 1,485 1,265 1,247 1,242 1,240 

New Hampshire 1,150 1,329 1,504 1,879 1,856 

New Jersey 1,267 1,608 1,626 1,620 1,616 

New Mexico 1,409 1,282 1,335 1,329 1,328 

New York 1,464 1,855 1,833 1,825 1,821 

North Carolina 1,384 1,185 1,173 1,168 1,165 

North Dakota 1,190 1,057 1,962 2,553 2,546 

Ohio 1,332 1,509 1,489 1,483 1,481 

Oklahoma 1,342 1,143 1,179 1,174 1,171 

Oregon 1,298 1,303 1,310 1,304 1,303 

Pennsylvania 1,342 1,692 1,669 1,662 1,658 

Puerto Rico 1,436 1,151 1,133 1,128 1,126 

Rhode Island 1,348 1,726 1,700 1,693 1,690 

South Carolina 1,382 1,301 1,281 1,275 1,274 

South Dakota 1,285 1,134 1,407 1,744 1,727 

Tennessee 1,379 1,175 1,163 1,158 1,155 

Texas 1,418 1,253 1,254 1,248 1,247 

Utah 1,292 1,096 1,085 1,080 1,078 

Vermont 1,134 1,431 2,328 2,922 2,929 

Virginia 1,308 1,400 1,395 1,389 1,387 

Washington 1,291 1,220 1,211 1,206 1,204 

West Virginia 1,352 1,476 1,562 1,555 1,558 

Wisconsin 1,321 1,563 1,543 1,536 1,532 

Wyoming 1,162 1,463 2,304 2,845 2,815 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, formula allocations for Title I, 

Part A, for FY 2007. 
 

Appendix B 126 

Exhibit B.12 

Distribution of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Schools, by School Urbanicity, 2004–05 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,528 schools, 8,640 Title I schools, 456 Reading First schools, and 

290 CSR schools). 
 

Appendix B 127 

Exhibit B.13 

Distribution of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Schools, 

by School Grade Level, 2004–05 

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,288 schools, including 8,393 Title I schools, 457 Reading First schools, 

and 288 CSR schools). 

Exhibit B.14 

Distribution of Federal Program Funds, 

by School Grade Level ($ in Millions), 2004–05 

Title I (Including 

Section 1003) 

Reading 

First CSR Title II Title III Perkins 

Elementary $6,200 $1,024 $127 $1,471 $345 $0 

Middle $2,607 $0 $46 $620 $144 $307 

High $3,537 $0 $61 $839 $191 $434 

Total $12,343 $1,024 $234 $2930 $681 $741 

Note: Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service. 
 

Appendix B 128 

Exhibit B.15 

Average Title I School Allocations per Low-income Student by School Poverty Level, 

1997–98 and 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

School Poverty Level 

75% or More 50% to <75% 35% to <50% Less than 35% 

Actual funding per low-income student 

1997–98 $475 $400 $408 $771 

2004–05 $558 $611 $671 $763 

CPI-adjusted funding per low-income student (constant 2004–05 dollars)

1997–98 $563 $474 $484 $914 

2004–05 $558 $611 $653 $815 

Percentage change -1% 29% 35% -11% 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=4,563 Title I schools); NLS-NCLB, school 

allocations, 2004–05 (n=8,564 Title I schools). 
 

Appendix B 129 

Exhibit B.16 

Title I Total District Allocations, Number of Poor Children, and Average 

Title I Allocation per Poor Child, by District Poverty Quartile, 1997–98 and 2004–05, 

in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

District Poverty Level 

Total Title I Allocations 

1997–98 

($ in Millions) 

2004–05 

($ in Millions) Percent Change 

Highest poverty quartile $3,847 $6,053 +57% 

Second-highest poverty quartile $2,059 $3,134 +52% 

Second-lowest poverty quartile $1,213 $1,755 +45% 

Lowest poverty quartile $600 $678 +13% 

All Title I districts $7,719 $11,619 +51% 

Total Number of Poor Children 

1997–98 

(in Thousands) 

2004–05 

(in Thousands) Percent Change 

Highest poverty quartile 3,684 3,833 +4% 

Second-highest poverty quartile 1,967 2,123 +8% 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 1,131 1,257 +11% 

Lowest poverty quartile 502 539 +7% 

All Title I districts 7,286 7,752 +6% 

Average Title I Allocation per Poor Child 

1997–98 2004–05 Percent Change 

Highest poverty quartile $1,044 $1,579 +51% 

Second-highest poverty quartile $1,047 $1,475 +41% 

Second-lowest poverty quartile $1,072 $1,398 +30% 

Lowest poverty quartile $1,194 $1,256 +5% 

All Title I districts $1,059 $1,499 +41% 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=12,903 Title I districts); NLS-NCLB,

district allocations, 2004–05 (n=12,856 Title I districts). 
 

Appendix B 130 

Exhibit B.17 

Title I Total School Allocations, Number of Low-income Students, and 

Average Title I Allocation per Low-income Student, by School Poverty Level, 

1997–98 and 2004–05, in Constant 2004–05 Dollars 

School Poverty Level 

Total Title I School Allocations 

1997–98 

($ in Millions) 

2004–05 

($ in Millions) Percent Change 

75% or more $2,999 $3,761 +25% 

50% to <75% $1,780 $3,684 +107% 

35% to <50% $612 $1,737 +184% 

Less than 35% $1,011 $584 -42% 

All Title I schools $6,402 $9,766 +53% 

Total Number of Low-income Students 

1997–98 

(in Thousands) 

2004–05 

(in Thousands) Percent Change 

75% or more 5,331 6,744 +27% 

50% to <75% 3,752 6,025 +61% 

35% to <50% 1,260 2,590 +105% 

Less than 35% 1,103 765 -31% 

All Title I schools 11,446 16,124 +41% 

Average Title I Allocation per Low-income Student 

1997–98 2004–05 Percent Change 

75% or more $563 $558 -1% 

50% to <75% $474 $611 +29% 

35% to <50% $486 $671 +38% 

Less than 35% $917 $763 -17% 

All Title I schools $559 $606 +8% 

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=4,563 Title I schools); NLS-NCLB,

school allocations, 2004–05 (n=8,564 Title I schools). 
 

Appendix B 131 

Exhibit B.18 

Use of Total Current Educational Expenditures for Instruction, Instructional 

and Student Support, and Administration and Other Support, 2004–05 

Total ($ in Millions) Percent 

Instruction $259,614 61% 

Instructional support 

Instructional staff services $20,347 5% 

Student support $22,106 5% 

Administration and other support 

School administration $24,149 6% 

General administration $8,499 2% 

Operation and maintenance $40,894 10% 

Transportation $17,454 4% 

Food services $16,424 4% 

Other support services $14,117 3% 

Enterprise operations $960 0% 

Total current expenditures $424,564 100% 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2007), Digest of Education Statistics: 2007 (Washington, 

D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics), Table 167. 
 

Appendix B 132 

Exhibit B.19 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel Expenditures per 

Student in High- and Low-Poverty Title I Schools, 2004–05 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 133 

APPENDIX C. 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

(Standard error estimates are reported in parentheses in all tables presented below.) 

Exhibit C.1 

Percentage of Schools That Received 

Title I Funds, 2004–05 

Percent 

All schools 56% (1.76) 

School poverty level 

75% or more 93% (1.71) 

50%-<75% 80% (2.38) 

35%-<50% 62% (4.38) 

Less than 35% 22% (2.54) 

Grade level 

Elementary schools 71% (1.81) 

Middle schools 40% (3.37) 

High schools 27% (5.32) 

Secondary schools* 32% (3.22) 

Urbanicity

Urban 59% (1.96) 

Suburban 53% (2.42) 

Rural 59% (4.99) 

School improvement status 

Schools identified for improvement 84% (2.77) 

 75% or more 95% (3.91) 

 Less than 35% 19% (6.62) 

Non-identified schools 54% (2.05) 

* Includes high schools and middle schools. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,284 schools). 
 

Appendix C 134 

Exhibit C.2 

Percentage of Schools That Received CSR 

Funds, 2004–05 

Percent 

All schools 1% (0.17) 

School poverty level 

75% or more 3% (0.42) 

50%-<75% 1% (0.26) 

35%-<50% 1% (0.69) 

Less than 35% 0% (0.07) 

Grade level 

Elementary schools 1% (0.13) 

Middle schools 2% (0.91) 

High schools 1% (0.17) 

Secondary schools* 1% (0.43) 

School improvement status

Schools identified for improvement 5% (1.30) 

Non-identified schools 1% (0.10) 

* Includes high schools and middle schools.

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,284 schools).

Exhibit C.3 

Percentage of Schools That Received Reading First 

Funds, 2004–05 

Percent 

All schools 2% (0.21) 

School poverty level 

75% or more 8% (0.81) 

50%-<75% 3% (0.72) 

35%-<50% 0% (0.13) 

Less than 35% 0% (0.05) 

Grade level 

Elementary schools 4% (0.38) 

School improvement status

Schools identified for improvement 4% (0.74) 

Non-identified schools 2% (0.22) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,284 schools). 
 

Appendix C 135 

Exhibit C.4 

Poverty Measures That Districts Used to Determine 

Title I School Allocations, 2004–05 

Percent of Districts* 

Children eligible for free and reduced-price lunches 87% (4.37) 

Children eligible for free lunches only 5% (2.45) 

Children in families receiving assistance under the state 

program funded under Title IV, Part A, of the Social Security 

Act ("Temporary Assistance to Needy Families") 

3% (2.47) 

Children eligible to receive medical assistance under the 

Medicaid program 4% (2.46) 

Missing responses** 5% (2.7) 

* Does not add to 100 percent because the survey question allows multiple responses. 

** Districts did not respond to this survey item. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district request for documents (n=281 Title I districts). 

Exhibit C.5 

Methods that Districts Used in Making Title I School Allocations, 2004–05 

Percent of Districts* 

Applied 125% minimum per-child allocation rule 12% (3.29) 

Placed schools in rank order by poverty within each grade 

span 30% (5.67) 

Served schools without regard to grade span 10% (2.73) 

Used feeder patterns to determine eligibility for secondary 

schools 4% (2.44) 

Did not apply rank-order requirement because district has 

fewer than 1,000 students or only one school per grade span 40% (6.36) 

Other 4% (1.83) 

* Does not add to 100 percent because the survey question allows multiple responses. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district request for documents (n=281 Title I districts). 
 

Appendix C 136 

Exhibit C.6 

Average Title I School Allocation per Low-income Student, 

by School Poverty Level, 1997–98 

School Poverty All Schools Elementary 

Schools 

Secondary 

Schools 

Targeted 

Assistance 

Programs 

Schoolwide 

Programs 

Overall $472 (13.99) $495 (17.72) $372 (14.64) $511 (24.20) $457 (19.17) 

Over 75% $475 (17.60) $479 (21.07) $446 (15.75) $468 (10.15) $470 (22.62) 

50-<75% $400 (12.40) $432 (14.42) $322 (19.82) $416 (26.81) $399 (17.03) 

35-<50% $410 (17.31) $428 (19.47) $302 (31.36) $416 (19.33) $458 (39.30) 

Less than 35% $773 (78.04) $824 (87.36) $442 (52.12) $753 (68.00) * 

* Results are not shown due to small sample sizes.

Source: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding (n=8,564 Title I schools).
 

Appendix C 137 

Exhibit C.7 

Distribution of Schools Receiving Title I Funds, by School Type, 2004–05 

 All Schools 

Title I Schools 

All 

Title I Schools 

Schoolwide 

Programs 

Targeted 

Assistance 

Programs 

Grade level 

Elementary schools 62% (1.85) 78% (2.52) 74% (3.69) 84% (3.39) 

Middle schools 17% (1.14) 12% (1.02) 14% (1.34) 9% (1.61) 

High schools 22% (1.76) 10% (2.20) 13% (3.75) 7% (1.67) 

Secondary schools 39% (1.82) 22% (2.23) 26% (3.47) 16% (2.32) 

School poverty level 

75% or more 17% (1.10) 28% (1.87) 39% (2.71) 13% (2.59) 

50% to <75% 24% (1.46) 35% (2.26) 48% (3.04) 17% (2.62) 

35% to <50% 21% (1.73) 23% (2.57) 13% (2.59) 37% (4.57) 

Less than 35% 37% (1.72) 14% (1.74) 0% (0.0) 34% (3.84) 

Minority rate 

50% or more 34% (1.55) 47% (2.38) 67% (2.78) 22% (2.71) 

Less than 50% 66% (1.61) 53% (2.42) 34% (2.60) 78% (3.04) 

Urbanicity 

Urban 29% (1.28) 31% (1.76) 35% (2.21) 24% (2.87) 

Suburban 45% (1.76) 41% (2.47) 42% (3.26) 40% (3.92) 

Rural 27% (2.03) 28% (2.65) 23% (2.41) 36% (4.90) 

Title I status 

Non–Title I 45% (1.77) 0% (0.02) 0% (0.00) 0% (0.00) 

Title I schoolwide 

programs 31% (1.56) 56% (2.43) 100% (0.00) 0% (0.00) 

Title I targeted 

assistance programs 25% (1.74) 44% (2.47) 0% (0.00) 100% (0.00) 

School improvement status 

Identified schools 13% (0.92) 19% (1.51) 22% (1.58) 15% (2.96) 

Non-identified schools 87% (1.29) 81% (1.73) 78% (1.79) 85% (3.36) 

Note: percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n= 12,986 schools including 8,716 Title I schools).
 

Appendix C 138 

Exhibit C.8 

Distribution of Students, Low-income Students, and Title I Funds Among Schools, 

2004–05 

Low-income 

Students All Students 

Low-income 

Students in 

Title I Schools 

All Students 

in 

Title I Schools 

Title I Funds

Grade level 

Elementary schools 57% (1.64) 49% (1.57) 69% (2.29) 67% (2.54) 76% (2.08) 

Middle schools 20% (1.04) 20% (1.08) 17% (1.05) 16% (1.15) 14% (0.98) 

High schools 22% (1.87) 31% (1.84) 14% (2.60) 16% (2.86) 10% (2.15) 

Secondary schools 43% (1.68) 51% (1.61) 31% (2.32) 33% (2.57) 25% (2.08) 

School poverty level 

75% or more 30% (1.15) 14% (0.60) 42% (1.76) 27% (1.38) 38% (1.69) 

50% to <75% 33% (1.71) 23% (1.43) 37% (2.19) 36% (2.34) 38% (2.13) 

35% to <50% 20% (1.39) 20% (1.40) 16% (1.66) 22% (2.16) 18% (1.89) 

Less than 35% 17% (0.93) 43% (1.57) 5% (0.58) 14% (1.50) 6% (0.71) 

Minority rate 

50% or more 56% (1.54) 36% (1.47) 67% (1.82) 56% (2.19) 60% (2.04) 

Less than 50% 44% (1.52) 64% (1.50) 33% (1.80) 44% (2.16) 40% (2.05) 

Urbanicity 

Urban 41% (1.38) 34% (1.36) 45% (1.85) 39% (1.89) 44% (1.85) 

Suburban 41% (1.66) 48% (1.60) 38% (2.22) 44% (2.38) 38% (2.13) 

Rural 18% (1.31) 17% (1.44) 17% (1.50) 17% (1.66) 18% (1.82) 

Title I status 

Non–Title I schools 30% (1.30) 51% (1.60) 0% (0.03) 0% (0.03) 0% (0.02) 

Title I schoolwide 

programs 52% (1.57) 30% (1.48) 73% (1.64) 61% (2.10) 71% (1.89) 

Title I targeted 

assistance programs 19% (1.14) 19% (1.21) 27% (1.58) 39% (2.08) 30% (1.89) 

School improvement status 

Identified schools 24% (0.99) 15% (0.78) 30% (1.38) 24% (1.28) 27% (1.31) 

Non-identified schools 76% (1.12) 85% (0.96) 70% (1.49) 76% (1.44) 73% (1.45) 

Note: percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n= 12,986 schools including 8,716 Title I schools). 
 

Appendix C 139 

Exhibit C.9 

Average Title I School Allocations per Low-income Student, by School Type, 2004–05 

All Schools Elementary 

Schools 

Middle 

Schools 

High 

Schools Secondary 

Schools 

Schoolwide 

Programs 

Targeted 

Assistance 

Programs 

All schools $606 (9.66) $664 (11.55) $502 (15.36) $451 (17.06) $479 (11.04) $584 (10.43) $683 (21.50) 

School poverty level 

75% or more $558 (8.08) $576 (9.49) $530 (14.65) $456 (31.54) $507 (15.07) $552 (8.16) $592 (35.66) 

50% to <75% $611 (18.15) $688 (22.69) $483 (31.50) $471 (17.30) $477 (17.53) $610 (21.18) $657 (36.84) 

35% to <50% $671 (34.26) $806 (34.07) $462 (38.15) $378 (56.51) $418 (30.72) $648 (58.73) $703 (42.00) 

Less than 35% $763 (54.30) $858 (77.77) $592 (87.32) $514 (81.57) $542 (61.78) * $764 (54.40) 

School percent minority 

50% or more $542 (5.94) $574 (7.20) $508 (11.73) $470 (12.22) $489 (8.11) $546 (6.88) $545 (14.41) 

Less than 50% $744 (24.22) $815 (26.25) $501 (44.90) $325 (75.02) $458 (43.09) $737 (39.70) $768 (31.25) 

Urbanicity 

Urban $589 (9.11) $620 (10.44) $543 (23.00) $473 (22.58) $514 (17.15) $572 (7.87) $662 (27.37) 

Suburban $593 (14.75) $671 (15.30) $456 (21.20) $454 (24.52) $455 (16.32) $582 (16.05) $643 (32.43) 

Rural $679 (39.39) $765 (50.15) $487 (35.98) $317 (62.69) $437 (34.33) $622 (46.95) $810 (59.77) 

School improvement status 

Identified 

schools $556 (9.79) $582 (12.84) $549 (15.48) $467 (24.98) $519 (14.00) $552 (10.42) $597 (33.71) 

Non-identified 

schools $624 (13.51) $686 (14.57) $461 (29.03) $443 (24.59) $451 (18.41) $601 (15.75) $693 (24.65) 

* Results are not shown due to small sample sizes. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools). 
 

Appendix C 140 

Exhibit C.10 

Average Title I School Allocations per Low-income Student 

by School Poverty Level and District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

School 

Poverty Level 

District Poverty Quartile 

Lowest 

Poverty Quartile 

Second-Lowest 

Poverty Quartile 

Second-Highest 

Poverty Quartile 

Highest 

Poverty Quartile All Districts 

Overall $910 (56.83) $653 (26.12) $649 (19.44) $547 (9.16) $606 (9.57) 

75% or more $1,273 (145.89) $505 (24.30) $656 (23.58) $535 (6.72) $558 (7.89) 

50 to <75% $861 (68.17) $606 (29.15) $652 (30.47) $573 (19.03) $611 (17.99) 

35 to <50% $798 (64.52) $754 (45.00) $637 (44.26) $549 (83.71) $671 (33.98) 

Less than 35% $935 (79.91) $703 (109.43) $598 (19.49) $399 (19.70) $763 (53.14) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools). 

Exhibit C.11 

Average Poverty Rate of Title I Schools, by School Poverty Level and 

District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

School Poverty 

Level 

District Poverty Quartile 

Lowest 

Poverty Quartile 

Second-Lowest 

Poverty Quartile 

Second-Highest 

Poverty Quartile 

Highest 

Poverty 

Quartile 

Overall 

Overall 21% (1.62) 46% (1.97) 63% (1.24) 72% (1.29) 58% (1.05) 

75% or more 79% (1.61) 87% (1.86) 86% (0.92) 88% (0.33) 87% (0.63) 

50 to <75% 57% (1.42) 61% (0.88) 62% (0.66) 62% (0.71) 62% (0.50) 

35 to <50% 41% (0.74) 42% (0.92) 44% (0.67) 43% (0.24) 43% (0.51) 

Less than 35% 16% (1.48) 21% (1.77) 27% (2.08) 27% (0.59) 19% (1.12) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools). 
 

Appendix C 141 

Exhibit C.12 

Average Poverty Rate of Title I Schools, by Type of School, 2004–05 

Overall School Poverty Rate 

Overall 58% (1.07) 

Grade level 

Elementary schools 57% (1.17) 

Middle schools 62% (0.52) 

High schools 51% (2.25) 

School poverty level 

75% or more 87% (0.63) 

50% to <75% 62% (0.52) 

35% to <50% 43% (0.51) 

Less than 35% 19% (1.13) 

Minority rate 

50% or more 73% (1.33) 

Less than 50% 44% (1.22) 

Urbanicity 

Urban 69% (1.19) 

Suburban 51% (1.62) 

Rural 56% (2.08) 

Type of Title I program 

Schoolwide programs 69% (1.05) 

Targeted assistance programs 46% (1.77) 

School improvement status 

Identified schools 74% (1.87) 

Non-identified schools 54% (1.18) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools).
 

Appendix C 142 

Exhibit C.13 

Percentage of Schools Receiving Title I Funds, by School Poverty Level and 

District Poverty Quartile, 2004–05 

School Poverty 

Level 

District Poverty Quartile 

Lowest 

Poverty Quartile 

Second-Lowest 

Poverty Quartile 

Second-Highest 

Poverty Quartile 

Highest 

Poverty Quartile Overall 

Overall 37% (3.61) 42% (4.41) 59% (2.60) 82% (1.31) 56% (1.77) 

75% or more 66% (17.85) 95% (1.70) 87% (5.09) 96% (0.46) 93% (1.71) 

50 to <75% 80% (6.92) 68% (8.88) 81% (3.29) 83% (1.92) 80% (2.37) 

35 to <50% 74% (5.75) 72% (8.09) 52% (5.22) 61% (6.29) 62% (4.32) 

Less than 35% 34% (3.85) 15% (4.53) 6% (1.83) 28% (3.25) 22% (2.53) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=8,564 Title I schools). 

Exhibit C.14 

Distribution of Schools Receiving Reading First Funds, 2004–05 

 All Schools Reading First 

Schools 

Reading First 

Funds 

Grade level 

Elementary schools 60% (1.85) 100% (0.22) 100% (0.21) 

Middle schools 18% (1.17) 0% (0.00) 0% (0.00) 

High schools 22% (1.77) 0% (0.00) 0% (0.00) 

School poverty level

75% or more 16% (1.11) 59% (3.54) 57% (4.45) 

50% to <75% 25% (1.53) 36% (3.62) 39% (4.42) 

35% to <50% 20% (1.69) 3% (1.19) 3% (1.47) 

Less than 35% 39% (1.70) 2% (0.82) 2% (1.16) 

Urbanicity 

Urban 28% (1.24) 64% (3.45) 62% (4.18) 

Suburban 46% (1.78) 29% (2.74) 29% (3.02) 

Rural 26% (1.98) 7% (3.35) 9% (4.35) 

Note: percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,986 schools including 457 Reading First 

schools). 
 

Appendix C 143 

Exhibit C.15 

Reading First Allocations per Low-income Student, 

by School Poverty Level and Urbanicity, 2004–05 

Based on All Low-income Students 

in Reading First Schools 

Based on K–3 Low-income Students 

in Reading First Schools 

All schools $342 (19.22) $662 (60.83) 

School poverty level

75% or more $311 (23.38) $559 (43.74) 

50% to <75% $425 (28.96) $851 (165.94) 

35% to <50% * * 

Less than 35% * * 

Urbanicity

Urban $320 (21.01) $605 (39.47) 

Suburban $378 (57.57) $861 (241.54) 

Rural * * 

* Results are not shown due to small sample sizes.

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=397 Reading First schools).

Exhibit C.16 

Distribution of CSR Schools and Funds, by School Grade Level, 

Poverty Level, and Urbanicity, 2004–05 

 All Schools All CSR 

Schools 

Low-income 

Students All Students CSR Funds 

Grade level 

Elementary schools 61% (1.91) 52% (7.57) 56% (1.75) 49% (1.62) 48% (5.88) 

Middle schools 18% (1.20) 36% (8.90) 21% (1.13) 21% (1.16) 34% (6.98) 

High schools 21% (1.83) 12% (3.02) 23% (2.03) 31% (1.91) 19% (4.09) 

School poverty level

75% or more 16% (1.14) 44% (6.81) 29% (1.16) 14% (0.59) 49% (6.03) 

50% to <75% 25% (1.57) 30% (5.60) 33% (1.83) 23% (1.52) 33% (5.20) 

35% to <50% 21% (1.79) 21% (10.19) 20% (1.52) 20% (1.53) 13% (7.67) 

Less than 35% 37% (1.74) 5% (2.26) 17% (0.99) 43% (1.59) 4% (2.05) 

Urbanicity

Urban 23% (1.04) 53% (7.59) 36% (1.28) 28% (1.12) 61% (6.66) 

Suburban 49% (1.84) 32% (8.97) 45% (1.73) 54% (1.61) 26% (7.09) 

Rural 28% (2.08) 14% (4.16) 19% (1.42) 19% (1.52) 13% (4.15) 

Note: percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=12,986 schools including 291 CSR schools). 
 

Appendix C 144 

Exhibit C.17 

CSR Allocations per Low-income Student, by School Poverty Level 

and Grade Level, 2004–05 

School Poverty 

Level All Schools Elementary 

Schools Middle Schools High Schools 

All $280 (13.33) $291 (19.36) $281 (22.61) $249 (37.03) 

75% or more $259 (12.71) $266 (14.74) $247 (28.74) * 

50% to <75% $320 (33.18) $382 (67.08) * * 

35% to <50% * * * * 

Less than 35% * * * * 

* Results are not shown due to small sample sizes.

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations. 

Exhibit C.18 

District Allocations of Title I, Reading First, and CSR Funds 

to Public Schools, 2004–05 

Amount 

($ in Millions) Percent 

Title I $8,916 74% (1.61) 

Reading First $693 85% (7.53) 

CSR $167 79% (5.62) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=208 to 271 districts).

Exhibit C.19 

Percentage of Title I Schoolwide-Eligible Schools That Operated 

Schoolwide Programs, by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

School Poverty Level Percent 

Overall 71% (2.77) 

75% or more 79% (3.75) 

50% to <75% 78% (3.09) 

35% to <50% 43% (7.51) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, school allocations (n=7,444 Title I schools).
 

Appendix C 145 

Exhibit C.20 

Use of Title I, Part A, Funds for Instruction, Instructional and 

Student Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 

Expenditure 

($ in Millions) Percent 

Instruction $8,778 73% (2.57) 

 Instructional staff $7,069 59% (3.31) 

Teachers $5,816 48% (3.75) 

Aides $1,253 10% (1.30) 

 Instructional materials and equipment $1,443 12% (2.00) 

Instructional materials $1,159 10% (1.87) 

Student computers and other technology $284 2% (0.73) 

 Other instructional expenditures $266 2% (0.66) 

Instructional support $2,122 18% (2.16) 

Professional development $1,009 8% (1.62) 

Student support staff $406 3% (0.80) 

Other instructional support $533 4% (1.10) 

Parent involvement and community services $175 1% (0.34) 

Administration $1,149 10% (1.17) 

School administration $223 2% (0.33) 

District administration $622 5% (0.85) 

Transportation $155 1% (0.42) 

Facilities $149 1% (0.38) 

Total $12,049 100% 

Note: Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=267 districts). 
 

Appendix C 146 

Exhibit C.21 

Use of Title I, Section 1003, Funds for Instruction, Instructional and 

Student Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 

Expenditure 

 ($ in Millions) Percent 

Instruction $256 51% (8.96) 

 Instructional staff $100 20% (6.28) 

Teachers $83 17% (6.07) 

Aides $17 3% (1.66) 

 Instructional materials and equipment $135 27% (6.71) 

Instructional materials $123 25% (6.56) 

Student computers and other technology $12 2% (1.00) 

 Other instructional expenditures $21 4% (1.88) 

Instructional and student support $208 42% (9.48) 

Professional development $199 40% (9.65) 

Student support staff $1 0% (0.13) 

Instructional support $6 1% (0.47) 

Parent involvement and community services $2 0% (0.24) 

Administration $34 7% (2.23) 

School administration $4 1% (0.42) 

District administration $11 2% (0.81) 

Transportation $6 1% (0.82) 

Facilities $13 3% (1.68) 

Total $498 100% 

Note: Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=97 districts). 
 

Appendix C 147 

Exhibit C.22 

Use of Title II, Part A, Funds for Instruction, Instructional and 

Student Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 

Expenditure 

 ($ in Millions) Percent 

Instruction $1,857 67% (3.07) 

 Instructional staff $1,745 63% (3.19) 

Teachers $1,567 56% (3.42) 

Aides $178 6% (1.04) 

 Instructional materials and equipment $77 3% (0.49) 

Instructional materials $55 2% (0.4) 

Student computers and other technology $22 1% (0.26) 

 Other instructional expenditures $34 1% (0.34) 

Instructional and student support $670 24% (2.68) 

Professional development $518 19% (2.49) 

Student support staff $31 1% (0.47) 

Instructional support $121 4% (0.87) 

Parent involvement and community services $0 0% (0.01) 

Administration $259 9% (1.59) 

School administration $31 1% (0.27) 

District administration $178 6% (1.36) 

Transportation $0 0% (0.00) 

Facilities $50 2% (0.78) 

Total $2,786 100% 

Note: Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=266 districts). 
 

Appendix C 148 

Exhibit C.23 

Use of Title III, Part A, Funds for Instruction, Instructional and 

Student Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 

Expenditure 

 ($ in Millions) Percent 

Instruction $386 75% (4.19) 

 Instructional staff $283 55% (6.57) 

Teachers $212 41% (8.02) 

Aides $70 14% (3.99) 

 Instructional materials and equipment $94 18% (3.54) 

Instructional materials $84 16% (3.37) 

Student computers and other technology $10 2% (0.63) 

 Other instructional expenditures $10 2% (0.62) 

Instructional and student support $100 19% (3.5) 

Professional development $45 9% (2.05) 

Student support staff $12 2% (0.80) 

Instructional support $40 8% (2.09) 

Parent involvement and community services $4 1% (0.41) 

Administration $31 6% (1.44) 

School administration $7 1% (0.70) 

District administration $15 3% (0.90) 

Transportation $1 0% (0.06) 

Facilities $8 2% (0.65) 

Total $517 100% 

Note: Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=180 districts). 
 

Appendix C 149 

Exhibit C.24 

Use of Perkins Funds for Instruction, Instructional and 

Student Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 

Expenditure 

 ($ in Millions) Percent 

Instruction $462 72% (4.39) 

 Instructional staff $176 27% (5.90) 

Teachers $128 20% (5.64) 

Aides $48 7% (2.80) 

 Instructional materials and equipment $283 44% (6.83) 

Instructional materials $248 39% (6.97) 

Student computers and other technology $35 5% (3.51) 

 Other instructional expenditures $3 1% (0.29) 

Instructional and student support $129 20% (3.60) 

Professional development $44 7% (1.63) 

Student support staff $53 8% (2.40) 

Instructional support $31 5% (1.53) 

Parent involvement and community services $0 0% (0.01) 

Administration $51 8% (1.76) 

School administration $8 1% (0.50) 

District administration $19 3% (0.81) 

Transportation $1 0% (0.06) 

Facilities $23 4% (1.32) 

Total $641 100% 

Note: Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=140 districts).
 

Appendix C 150 

Exhibit C.25 

Use of Reading First Funds for Instruction, Instructional and 

Student Support, and Program Administration, 2004–05 

Expenditure 

 ($ in Millions) Percent 

Instruction $530 65% (5.17) 

 Instructional staff $342 42% (6.06) 

Teachers $310 38% (6.20) 

Aides $32 4% (1.72) 

 Instructional materials and equipment $179 22% (3.88) 

Instructional materials $147 18% (3.66) 

Student computers and other technology $32 4% (1.20) 

 Other instructional expenditures $9 1% (0.32) 

Instructional and student support $251 31% (5.06) 

Professional development $103 13% (2.86) 

Student support staff $27 3% (1.75) 

Instructional support $120 15% (4.42) 

Parent involvement and community services $0 0% (0.01) 

Administration $34 4% (1.07) 

School administration $3 0% (0.16) 

District administration $23 3% (0.87) 

Transportation $0 0% (0.01) 

Facilities $7 1% (0.55) 

Total $815 100% 

Note: Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=84 districts).
 

Appendix C 151 

Exhibit C.26 

Use of CSR Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student Support, 

and Program Administration, 2004–05 

Expenditure 

 ($ in Millions) Percent 

Instruction $114 54% (6.36) 

 Instructional staff $66 31% (5.84) 

Teachers $57 27% (5.81) 

Aides $9 4% (1.32) 

 Instructional materials and equipment $45 21% (5.00) 

Instructional materials $33 16% (3.71) 

Student computers and other technology $12 6% (3.89) 

 Other instructional expenditures $3 2% (0.84) 

Instructional and student support $84 39% (6.38) 

Professional development $64 30% (6.03) 

Student support staff $2 1% (0.39) 

Instructional support $18 8% (4.17) 

Parent involvement and community services $0 0% (0.05) 

Administration $14 7% (2.26) 

School administration $6 3% (1.87) 

District administration $7 3% (1.21) 

Transportation $0 0% (0.00) 

Facilities $2 1% (0.37) 

Total $212 100% 

Note: Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding.

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=82 districts).
 

Appendix C 152 

Exhibit C.27 

Uses of Federal Funds for Instruction, Instructional and Student Support, and 

Administration, by District Poverty Level and Urbanicity, 2004–05

n

Distribution of District Expenditures

Instructional 

Staff 

Other 

Instructional 

Expenditures 

Instructional and 

Student Support 

Administration 

and Other 

Support 

Title I, Part A

Overall 267 59 (3.31) 14 (2.11) 18 (2.16) 10 (1.17) 

District Poverty Level 

Highest poverty quartile 112 51 (6.32) 16 (3.91) 23 (4.38) 11 (2.06) 

Second-highest poverty quartile 64 66 (4.75) 13 (3.00) 14 (2.42) 8 (1.77) 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 41 63 (5.05) 13 (3.50) 14 (2.81) 9 (2.15) 

Lowest poverty quartile 49 78 (4.05) 7 (2.07) 8 (2.07) 7 (1.95) 

Urbanicity 

Urban 91 55 (6.02) 14 (2.81) 21 (4.08) 10 (2.04) 

Suburban 118 60 (4.58) 17 (4.35) 15 (2.36) 8 (1.37) 

Rural 57 70 (4.31) 8 (1.81) 13 (2.94) 10 (1.64) 

Title I, Section 1003

Overall 79 20 (6.28) 31 (7.05) 42 (9.48) 7 (2.23) 

District Poverty Level

Highest poverty quartile 49 14 (3.67) 29 (6.98) 50 (8.45) 7 (3.31) 

Second-highest poverty quartile 17 26 (17.59) 29 (16.76) 41 (23.75) 5 (3.27) 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 9 34 (13.98) 45 (14.93) 11 (5.78) 10 (5.76) 

Lowest poverty quartile 4 9 (9.22) 66 (25.49) 24 (21.0) 1 (0.74) 

Urbanicity

Urban 44 24 (5.92) 31 (7.17) 37 (6.77) 8 (2.37) 

Suburban 23 11 (4.65) 40 (14.01) 45 (16.98) 5 (3.44) 

Rural 12 22 (13.94) 27 (13.79) 44 (19.31) 7 (4.44) 

Reading First

Overall 84 42 (6.06) 23 (3.93) 31 (5.06) 4 (1.07) 

District Poverty Level

Highest poverty quartile 55 46 (7.86) 24 (5.24) 26 (5.23) 4 (1.32) 

Second-highest poverty quartile 19 28 (7.65) 22 (6.98) 46 (9.87) 4 (2.42) 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 6 49 (19.09) 14 (7.81) 34 (20.50) 4 (3.27) 

Lowest poverty quartile 3 30 (21.48) 45 (28.18) 17 (16.42) 7 (5.95) 

Urbanicity

Urban 51 43 (7.85) 18 (4.31) 35 (6.84) 4 (1.40) 

Suburban 23 30 (7.51) 40 (9.01) 27 (8.79) 4 (2.27) 

Rural 9 57 (15.47) 27 (12.75) 13 (6.74) 3 (1.73) 

CSR 

Overall 82 31 (5.84) 23 (5.04) 39 (6.38) 7 (2.26) 

District Poverty Level

Highest poverty quartile 59 25 (6.87) 26 (6.84) 45 (8.00) 4 (1.16) 

Second-highest poverty quartile 13 42 (15.23) 15 (6.17) 38 (17.01) 5 (2.73) 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 7 32 (16.46) 24 (11.81) 17 (8.69) 27 (16.06) 

Lowest poverty quartile 3 71 (21.04) 7 (6.46) 22 (18.36) 0 (0.10) 

continued next page 
 

Appendix C 153 

Exhibit C.27 (continued) 

Uses of Federal Funds for Instruction, Instructional Support, and Administration, by 

District Poverty Level and Urbanicity, 2004–05 

n

Distribution of District Expenditures

Instructional 

Staff 

Other 

Instructional 

Expenditures 

Instructional 

and Student 

Support 

Administration 

and Other 

Support 

CSR (continued) 

Urbanicity

Urban 57 30 (7.35) 20 (5.03) 43 (7.97) 8 (3.19) 

Suburban 19 33 (11.06) 35 (13.02) 27 (10.99) 4 (2.07) 

Rural 6 36 (18.76) 9 (5.24) 48 (18.42) 7 (4.79) 

Title II

Overall 266 63 (3.19) 4 (0.62) 24 (2.68) 9 (1.59) 

District Poverty Level

Highest poverty quartile 109 65 (5.17) 5 (1.16) 23 (4.34) 7 (1.74) 

Second-highest poverty quartile 63 67 (5.61) 2 (0.56) 17 (3.70) 13 (4.16) 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 41 55 (6.79) 4 (1.45) 32 (6.36) 9 (2.36) 

Lowest poverty quartile 53 52 (6.99) 6 (2.69) 37 (6.98) 4 (1.57) 

Urbanicity

Urban 90 66 (5.45) 5 (1.17) 23 (4.67) 7 (1.50) 

Suburban 119 58 (4.63) 3 (0.76) 27 (3.94) 12 (3.25) 

Rural 57 65 (5.89) 3 (1.27) 22 (4.95) 10 (3.72) 

Title III

Overall 180 55 (6.57) 20 (3.72) 19 (3.50) 6 (1.44) 

District Poverty Level

Highest poverty quartile 78 39 (6.65) 26 (5.34) 30 (5.59) 5 (1.43) 

Second-highest poverty quartile 38 52 (7.43) 24 (6.88) 21 (5.33) 4 (1.39) 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 30 70 (11.59) 11 (4.84) 10 (4.50) 9 (4.39) 

Lowest poverty quartile 34 66 (12.35) 21 (9.60) 10 (4.28) 3 (1.71) 

Urbanicity

Urban 80 47 (5.80) 21 (4.38) 28 (4.79) 5 (1.20) 

Suburban 82 46 (6.67) 25 (5.33) 20 (3.91) 10 (3.03) 

Rural 18 81 (11.25) 12 (7.15) 4 (2.69) 3 (3.63) 

Perkins

Overall 140 27 (5.90) 45 (6.80) 20 (3.60) 8 (1.76) 

District Poverty Level

Highest poverty quartile 68 17 (2.98) 54 (4.15) 19 (3.34) 10 (2.97) 

Second-highest poverty quartile 38 29 (6.80) 33 (7.41) 31 (7.61) 8 (2.72) 

Second-lowest poverty quartile 20 39 (14.56) 43 (13.00) 12 (4.20) 6 (2.76) 

Lowest poverty quartile 14 29 (18.85) 45 (12.55) 20 (8.44) 7 (4.02) 

Urbanicity

Urban 58 26 (5.95) 40 (7.97) 21 (4.28) 13 (3.82) 

Suburban 52 15 (4.86) 59 (10.04) 21 (6.71) 4 (1.79) 

Rural 30 48 (13.99) 27 (9.64) 18 (6.35) 7 (2.94) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal reports. 
 

Appendix C 154 

Exhibit C.28 

District Expenditures for Title I School Choice-Related Transportation and 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 and 2005–06 

Choice-Related 

Transportation

Supplemental Educational 

Services

2003–04 2005–06 2003–04 2005–06

Total district expenditures $24,176,157 $56,432,306 $192,360,300 $375,041,512

Number of participating 

students 38,000 (6,205) 58,482 (8,333) 233,000 (15,269) 448,829 (50,384)

Average expenditures per 

participant $643 (281.39) $965 (187.42) $875 (115.86) $838 (148.53)

Maximum funds allocated per 

participant $1,225 (48.30) $1,134 (106.76)

Source: NLS-NCLB, 2003–04 district surveys (n= 61 to 103 districts);2005–06 district surveys (n=62 to 116 districts). 

Exhibit C.29 

Percentage of Districts That Used Federal Program Funds for 

Professional Development, 2004–05 

Percent 

Title I, Part A 80% (6.80) 

Title I, Section 1003 93% (3.50) 

Title II, Part A 75% (6.68) 

Title III, Part A 42% (9.85) 

Perkins 43% (9.35) 

Reading First 57% (20.53) 

CSR 83% (9.57) 

Total 100% 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=79 to 266 districts). 
 

Appendix C 155 

Exhibit C.30 

Financial Contributions of Six Federal Programs to 

Professional Development, 2004–05 

Expenditure 

($ in Millions) Percent 

Title I $1,009 57% (5.46) 

Title II $518 29% (4.37) 

Title III $45 3% (0.59) 

Perkins $45 3% (0.58) 

Reading First $103 6% (1.39) 

CSR $64 4% (0.95) 

Total $1,784 100% 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district fiscal records (n=76 to 239 districts).

Exhibit C.31 

Share of Title II Funds Designated for Professional Development, 

by Content Area, 2004–05 

Share of Funds Designated for 

Professional Development 

Reading/English/Language Arts 29% (3.61) 

Mathematics 25% (4.00) 

Science 11% (2.22) 

History/Social Studies 6% (1.68) 

Other academic subjects (including technology) 13% (2.76) 

Other nonacademic subjects 15% (3.46) 

Total 100% 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey on uses of Title II funds (n=165 districts). 
 

Appendix C 156 

Exhibit C.32 

Percentage of Districts That Used Title II Funds for Recruitment, 

Professional Development, and Other Activities, 2004–05 

Title II Activities Percent 

Teacher salaries to reduce class size 70% (7.64) 

Professional development activities for teachers and paraprofessionals 66% (7.63) 

Professional development/leadership programs for principals 27% (6.93) 

Initiatives that promote professional growth and emphasize multiple career 

paths for teachers 8% (2.54) 

Programs and initiatives to help schools reward quality teaching 1% (0.42) 

Programs and initiatives to help schools recruit personnel 8% (2.41) 

Programs and initiatives to help schools retain personnel 13% (3.55) 

Tenure system reform 1% (0.88) 

Teacher testing in academic areas 2% (0.96) 

Private school professional development activities 14% (3.32) 

Administrative expenditures 26% (6.23) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey on uses of Title II funds (n=215 districts). 

Exhibit C.33 

Total Spending on Title II Funds for Recruitment, Professional Development, 

and Other Activities, 2004–05 

Title II Activities $ in Millions Percent of 

Total 

Teacher salaries to reduce class size $1,387 50% (3.95) 

Professional development activities for teachers and paraprofessionals $853 31% (3.85) 

Professional development/leadership programs for principals $70 3% (0.70) 

Initiatives that promote professional growth and emphasize multiple career 

paths for teachers $33 1% (0.33) 

Programs and initiatives to help schools reward quality teaching $17 1% (0.29) 

Programs and initiatives to help schools recruit personnel $64 2% (0.78) 

Programs and initiatives to help schools retain personnel $84 3% (0.92) 

Tenure system reform $0 0% (0.03) 

Teacher testing in academic areas $3 0% (0.06) 

Private school professional development activities $36 1% (0.25) 

Administrative expenditures $78 3% (0.45) 

Title II, Part A, funds combined with other federal program funds under the 

provisions of the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) $22 1% (0.41) 

Title II, Part A, funds transferred to another title through the NCLB funding 

transferability provision $139 5% (1.92) 

Total $2,786 100% 

Note: percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey on uses of Title II funds (n=215 districts).
 

Appendix C 157 

Exhibit C.34 

Composition of FTE Title I Staff in the Nation, 1997–98 and 2004–05 

 1997–98 2004–05 

Types of Staff FTE Percent FTE Percent 

Teachers 66,002 45% (5.34) 98,206 55% (7.34) 

Teacher aides 68,724 47% (5.97) 61,952 35% (7.62) 

Administrative staff (certified) 2,675 2% (0.80) 3,965 2% (0.98) 

Support staff (certified) 4,005 3% (0.78) 7,145 4% (1.17) 

Other staff (noncertified) 4,199 3% (1.47) 8,280 5% (1.20) 

Total 145,604 100% 179,547 100%

Sources: Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding, 1997–98 (n=269 Title I schools); NLS-NCLB,

district personnel records, 2004–05 (n=885 Title I schools).

Exhibit C.35 

Consolidation of Program Funding in Districts With Schoolwide Programs, 

2004–05 

Percent 

Most schoolwide programs coordinate funds from Title I with funds from 

other federal, state, and local sources. 62% (7.74) 

Most schoolwide programs consolidate funds from Title I and other 

sources into a single pot of funds that is used to support activities under 

the schoolwide program. 

6% (2.57) 

Most schoolwide programs use Title I funds more flexibly than targeted 

assistance programs but do not coordinate or consolidate funds from 

other programs. 

23% (7.45) 

Most schoolwide programs use Title I funds in a similar manner as 

targeted assistance programs. 9% (3.69) 

Total 100% 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey (n=209 districts).
 

Appendix C 158 

Exhibit C.36 

Barriers to Consolidation of Funding in Title I Schoolwide Programs, 2004–05 

Percentage of Districts That Indicated 

Issue Posed a “Major Challenge” or a 

“Moderate Challenge” to Consolidating 

Funds in Title I Schoolwide Programs 

State accounting rules require separate accounting for 

federal program funds 44% (7.95) 

District accounting rules require separate accounting for 

federal program funds 36% (7.90) 

Concern about potential audit exceptions 42% (7.84) 

Lack of information about how to consolidate funds 24% (8.04) 

Turf-related issues between staff on programs that have 

been identified for transfer 10% (3.15) 

Need for more training and understanding of program 

issues by district finance staff 28% (7.98) 

Need for more training and understanding of finance 

issues by district program staff 27% (8.09) 

Other 13% (7.64) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district survey (n=132 districts).
 

Appendix C 159 

Exhibit C.37 

Uses of Title I Funds for Personnel Expenditures at the School Level, by School Grade 

Level, Title I Status, and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

 Teachers Teacher 

Aides 

Instructional 

and Student 

Support Staff 

Other Staff 

(Including 

Program 

Administration) 

All Title I schools 

All Title I schools (n=872) 71% (1.58) 17% (1.45) 7% (0.68) 5% (0.71) 

Highest-poverty schools (n=497) 68% (2.36) 15% (1.81) 10% (1.23) 7% (1.27) 

Lowest-poverty schools (n=74) 75% (4.92) 21% (4.99) 2% (1.02) 2% (1.70) 

Schoolwide programs (n=609) 71% (1.78) 16% (1.65) 8% (0.94) 5% (0.82) 

Targeted assistance schools (n=185) 76% (2.70) 18% (2.59) 3% (0.88) 4% (1.03) 

Title I schools identified for 

improvement (n=350) 76% (1.83) 9% (1.15) 8% (1.06) 7% (1.29) 

 Title I non-identified schools (n=474) 70% (2.12) 20% (2.03) 6% (0.91) 4% (0.91) 

Title I elementary schools 

All Title I schools (n=606) 70% (1.91) 19% (1.77) 6% (0.76) 5% (0.89) 

Highest-poverty schools (n=363) 66% (2.86) 16% (2.16) 10% (1.46) 7% (1.57) 

Lowest-poverty schools (n=59) 72% (5.78) 25% (5.71) 0% (0.01) 3% (2.05) 

Schoolwide programs (n=421) 69% (2.19) 18% (2.06) 8% (1.12) 5% (1.04) 

Targeted assistance schools (n=132) 76% (3.07) 19% (3.04) 2% (0.51) 3% (1.21) 

Title I schools identified for 

improvement (n=192) 73% (2.76) 11% (1.69) 7% (1.42) 9% (2.13) 

 Title I non-identified schools (n=381) 69% (2.34) 21% (2.26) 5% (0.91) 4% (1.02) 

Title I middle schools 

All Title I schools (n=145) 78% (2.53) 9% (1.57) 9% (1.81) 5% (1.02) 

Highest-poverty schools (n=77) 75% (3.12) 8% (1.72) 11% (2.41) 7% (1.77) 

Lowest-poverty schools (n=7) 92% (4.09) 0% (0.00) 6% (3.90) 2% (0.60) 

Schoolwide programs (n=99) 80% (2.39) 7% (1.64) 9% (1.74) 4% (1.28) 

Targeted assistance schools (n=31) 70% (7.89) 9% (2.94) 8% (5.92) 3% (1.34) 

Title I schools identified for 

improvement (n=88) 79% (2.57) 6% (1.55) 8% (1.70) 6% (1.50) 

 Title I non-identified schools (n=51) 76% (5.26) 14% (3.36) 7% (4.29) 2% (0.81) 

Title I high schools 

All Title I schools (n=98) 72% (3.42) 7% (1.61) 15% (3.00) 5% (1.21) 

Highest-poverty schools (n=44) 70% (4.39) 9% (2.46) 14% (3.11) 7% (2.04) 

Lowest-poverty schools (n=6) 81% (4.46) 7% (3.72) 11% (6.61) 2% (1.89) 

Schoolwide programs (n=71) 77% (4.16) 4% (1.27) 15% (3.73) 4% (1.15) 

Targeted assistance schools (n=19) 60% (4.91) 18% (6.26) 13% (4.61) 9% (3.81) 

Title I schools identified for 

improvement (n=61) 80% (3.18) 4% (1.49) 11% (2.64) 5% (1.35) 

 Title I non-identified schools (n=31) 51% (5.51) 16% (3.19) 25% (6.61) 8% (2.53) 

Note: percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 160 

Exhibit C.38 

Amount That Title I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditure in Title I Schools, 

by Title I Status and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

Expenditures per Low-income 

Student 

Base School-Level 

Personnel 

Expenditures 

Amount Added 

Through Title I Total Resources 

All Title I schools (n=885) $4,559 (88.40) $408 (17.90) $4,967 (90.19) 

Schoolwide programs (n=616) $4,478 (113.04) $395 (21.52) $4,873 (115.07) 

Targeted assistance schools (n=189) $4,718 (155.13) $464 (38.94) $5,182 (159.94) 

Title I highest-poverty schools (n=365) $4,582 (151.73) $402 (21.53) $4,984 (153.25) 

Title I lowest-poverty schools (n=60) $4,992 (238.93) $475 (83.52) $5,467 (253.11) 

Title I schools identified for 

improvement (n=354) $4,806 (170.16) $387 (23.83) $5,193 (171.82) 

Title I non-identified schools (n=482) $4,417 (80.70) $421 (27.48) $4,838 (85.25) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 

Exhibit C.39 

Amount That Title I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditures in Title I Schools, 

by School Grade Level, 2004–05 

Expenditures per Low-income 

Student 

Base School-Level 

Personnel 

Expenditures 

Amount Added 

Through Title I Total Resources 

Elementary schools (n=609) $4,486 (74.78) $523 (19.11) $5,009 (77.18) 

Middle schools (n=148) $4,137 (84.53) $354 (37.43) $4,491 (92.45) 

High schools (n=104) $4,931 (229.72) $229 (24.27) $5,160 (231.00) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 161 

Exhibit C.40 

Amount That Title I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditures in Title I Schools, 

by School Grade Level and Title I Status, 2004–05 

Expenditures per Low-income 

Student 

Base School-Level 

Personnel 

Expenditures 

Amount Added 

Through Title I Total Resources 

Elementary schools 

Schoolwide programs (n=422) $4,381 (89.85) $493 (21.76) $4,874 (92.45) 

Targeted assistance schools (n=134) $4,597 (136.41) $640 (36.04) $5,237 (141.09) 

Schools identified for improvement 

(n=193) $4,594 (151.88) $445 (25.76) $5,039 (154.05) 

Non-identified schools (n=383) $4,475 (87.35) $556 (26.75) $5,031 (91.35) 

Middle Schools

Schoolwide programs (n=100) $4,162 (81.77) $359 (50.81) $4,521 (96.27) 

Targeted assistance schools (n=32) $4,236 (215.31) $400 (38.09) $4,636 (218.65) 

Schools identified for improvement 

(n=89) $4,058 (127.02) $423 (38.21) $4,481 (132.64) 

Non-identified schools (n=53) $4,243 (94.47) $221 (28.83) $4,464 (98.77) 

High schools

Schoolwide programs (n=75) $4,876 (331.94) $247 (34.54) $5,123 (333.73) 

Targeted assistance schools (n=20) $5,040 (278.38) $183 (13.70) $5,223 (278.72) 

Schools identified for improvement 

(n=63) $5,520 (246.19) $299 (38.06) $5,819 (249.11) 

Non-identified schools (n=35) $4,211 (119.41) $120 (15.59) $4,331 (120.42) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records.

Exhibit C.41 

Amount That Tile I Added to School-Level Personnel Expenditures in the Highest- and 

Lowest-Poverty Elementary Title I Schools, 2004–05 

Expenditures per Low-income 

Student 

Base School-Level 

Personnel 

Expenditures 

Amount Added 

Through Title I Total Resources 

Elementary schools 

Title I - highest poverty (n=365) $4,428 (90.89) $449 (22.17) $4,877 (93.55) 

Title I - lowest poverty (n=60) $4,682 (235.19) $825 (107.66) $5,507 (258.66) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 162 

Exhibit C.42 

Number of FTE Staff per School of 500 Students in Title I Schools, Before and After 

the Addition of Title I Funds, by School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

Total Staff Teachers Teacher 

Aides 

NonInstructional 

Staff 

Base staffing levels 

All Title I schools (n=885) 46.4 (0.76) 28.8 (0.36) 5.0 (0.26) 12.6 (0.40) 

Elementary schools (n=609) 48.2 (0.97) 29.4 (0.40) 6.0 (0.34) 12.8 (0.48) 

Middle schools (n=148) 43.0 (1.01) 28.1 (0.73) 3.6 (0.56) 11.3 (0.49) 

High schools (n=104) 42.0 (2.15) 26.8 (1.33) 2.4 (0.35) 12.8 (1.36) 

Highest poverty (75% or more) (n=501) 46.9 (0.85) 29.2 (0.39) 5.1 (0.33) 12.6 (0.50) 

Lowest poverty (less than 35%) (n=76) 46.1 (1.93) 28.6 (1.20) 4.9 (0.62) 12.6 (1.09) 

Schoolwide programs (n=616) 47.7 (1.00) 29.5 (0.45) 5.3 (0.37) 12.9 (0.57) 

Targeted assistance programs (n=189) 45.0 (1.22) 28.2 (0.64) 4.7 (0.38) 12.1 (0.59) 

Title I schools identified for improvement 

(n=354) 44.8 (1.30) 27.8 (0.59) 3.8 (0.36) 13.2 (0.69) 

Title I non-identified schools (n=482) 47.2 (0.97) 29.5 (0.41) 5.7 (0.34) 12.0 (0.47) 

Amount added through Title I 

All Title I schools 3.5 (0.17) 1.9 (0.10) 1.2 (0.12) 0.4 (0.03) 

Elementary schools 4.3 (0.20) 2.3 (0.13) 1.6 (0.17) 0.4 (0.04) 

Middle schools 2.4 (0.22) 1.6 (0.18) 0.5 (0.08) 0.3 (0.06) 

High schools 1.1 (0.13) 0.7 (0.10) 0.2 (0.05) 0.2 (0.03) 

Highest poverty (75% or more) 4.4 (0.25) 2.4 (0.15) 1.3 (0.19) 0.7 (0.06) 

Lowest poverty (less than 35%) 1.7 (0.21) 0.9 (0.13) 0.7 (0.18) 0.1 (0.02) 

Schoolwide programs 4.0 (0.23) 2.2 (0.15) 1.3 (0.17) 0.5 (0.05) 

Targeted assistance programs 2.6 (0.21) 1.5 (0.15) 0.9 (0.12) 0.2 (0.03) 

Title I schools identified for improvement 3.2 (0.24) 2.1 (0.16) 0.6 (0.09) 0.5 (0.04) 

Title I non-identified schools 3.6 (0.22) 1.9 (0.14) 1.4 (0.16) 0.3 (0.04) 

Total staff

All Title I schools 49.9 (0.83) 30.7 (0.39) 6.2 (0.32) 13.0 (0.40) 

Elementary schools 52.5 (1.04) 31.7 (0.44) 7.6 (0.40) 13.2 (0.48) 

Middle schools 45.4 (1.02) 29.7 (0.70) 4.1 (0.57) 11.6 (0.53) 

High schools 43.1 (2.20) 27.5 (1.35) 2.6 (0.35) 13.0 (1.36) 

Highest poverty (75% or more) 51.3 (0.94) 31.6 (0.44) 6.4 (0.40) 13.3 (0.49) 

Lowest poverty (less than 35%) 47.8 (2.06) 29.5 (1.25) 5.6 (0.72) 12.7 (1.09) 

Schoolwide programs 51.7 (1.07) 31.7 (0.46) 6.6 (0.45) 13.4 (0.57) 

Targeted assistance programs 47.6 (1.34) 29.7 (0.71) 5.6 (0.44) 12.3 (0.60) 

Title I schools identified for improvement 48.0 (1.44) 29.9 (0.68) 4.4 (0.39) 13.7 (0.70) 

Title I non-identified schools 50.8 (1.05) 31.4 (0.43) 7.1 (0.42) 12.3 (0.48) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records.
 

Appendix C 163 

Exhibit C.43 

Distribution of FTE Staff Added Through Title I Funds, 

by Type of School, 2004–05 

Teachers Teacher Aides Noninstructional 

Staff 

All Title I schools (n=885) 56% (2.93) 34% (3.54) 11% (0.89) 

School grade level 

Elementary schools (n=609) 53% (2.96) 37% (3.91) 10% (1.00) 

Middle schools (n=148) 67% (7.51) 19% (3.33) 14% (2.38) 

High schools (n=104) 62% (8.85) 19% (4.67) 19% (2.89) 

School poverty level 

Highest poverty (75% or more) (n=501) 54% (3.41) 30% (4.37) 16% (1.44) 

Lowest poverty (less than 35%) (n=76) 56% (7.62) 41% (10.7) 4% (1.17) 

Type of Title I program 

Schoolwide programs (n=616) 55% (3.61) 33% (4.26) 12% (1.14) 

Targeted assistance programs (n=189) 60% (5.98) 34% (4.86) 6% (1.33) 

School identification status 

Title I schools identified for improvement 

(n=354) 65% (5.21) 19% (2.93) 16% (1.71) 

Title I non-identified schools (n=482) 53% (3.76) 38% (4.55) 9% (1.10) 

Note: Row totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 164 

Exhibit C.44 

Number of FTE Staff per School of 500 Students in Title I Schools, Before and After the 

Addition of Title I Funds, by School Grade Level and Title I Status, 2004–05 

 Total Staff Teachers Teacher 

Aides 

NonInstructional 

Staff 

Elementary schools 

 Base staffing level 

Schoolwide programs (n=422) 49.5 (1.36) 29.9 (0.46) 6.4 (0.48) 13.1 (0.74) 

Targeted assistance (n=134) 46.5 (1.37) 28.9 (0.75) 5.5 (0.48) 11.9 (0.46) 

Schools identified for improvement 

(n=193) 49.2 (1.49) 29.4 (0.68) 5.4 (0.62) 14.3 (0.40) 

Non-identified schools (n=383) 48.1 (1.17) 29.5 (0.46) 6.2 (0.40) 12.2 (0.56) 

 Staff added through Title I 

Schoolwide programs 5.2 (0.23) 2.7 (0.18) 1.9 (0.24) 0.6 (0.07) 

Targeted assistance 2.9 (0.24) 1.7 (0.19) 1.0 (0.15) 0.4 (0.04) 

Schools identified for improvement 4.3 (0.27) 2.6 (0.18) 1.0 (0.16) 0.6 (0.10) 

Non-identified schools 4.2 (0.23) 2.2 (0.16) 1.6 (0.20) 0.3 (0.05) 

Middle schools 

 Base staffing level 

Schoolwide programs (n=100) 44.2 (1.30) 29.0 (0.89) 4.3 (0.81) 10.9 (0.65) 

Targeted assistance (n=32) 42.6 (1.71) 27.6 (1.59) 2.6 (0.74) 12.2 (0.82) 

Schools identified for improvement (n=89) 40.2 (1.34) 25.7 (0.93) 2.7 (0.40) 11.7 (0.49) 

Non-identified schools (n=53) 45.5 (1.59) 30.3 (0.99) 4.5 (1.07) 10.5 (0.63) 

 Staff added through Title I 

Schoolwide programs 2.6 (0.32) 1.8 (0.27) 0.4 (0.10) 0.3 (0.06) 

Targeted assistance 2.1 (0.34) 1.4 (0.26) 0.4 (0.16) 0.2 (0.14) 

Schools identified for improvement 2.9 (0.24) 2.1 (0.19) 0.4 (0.11) 0.4 (0.07) 

Non-identified schools 1.9 (0.23) 1.2 (0.19) 0.5 (0.11) 0.1 (0.08) 

High schools 

 Base staffing level 

Schoolwide programs (n=75) 43.9 (2.72) 28.2 (1.89) 2.4 (0.48) 13.1 (1.70) 

Targeted assistance (n=20) 39.1 (3.15) 24.5 (1.26) 2.1 (0.47) 12.3 (2.35) 

Schools identified for improvement (n=63) 42.4 (2.37) 27.3 (1.16) 2.2 (0.22) 12.8 (1.67) 

Non-identified schools (n=35) 41.4 (1.85) 27.7 (0.81) 2.7 (0.27) 10.9 (1.07) 

 Staff added through Title I 

Schoolwide programs 1.2 (0.21) 0.8 (0.16) 0.1 (0.04) 0.2 (0.05) 

Targeted assistance 0.8 (0.16) 0.3 (0.11) 0.3 (0.12) 0.1 (0.03) 

Schools identified for improvement 1.4 (0.23) 1.0 (0.18) 0.1 (0.05) 0.2 (0.05) 

Non-identified schools 0.8 (0.17) 0.3 (0.08) 0.2 (0.09) 0.2 (0.04) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 165 

Exhibit C.45 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel Expenditures per 

Student, by Title I Status and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

 

Total 

Expenditures per 

Student 

Instructional 

Expenditures per 

Student 

Instructional 

and Student 

Support 

Expenditures 

per Student 

Administration 

Expenditures per 

Student 

All schools 

All schools (n=1,127) $4,603 (79.52) $3,527 (60.23) $327 (12.01) $748 (22.29) 

Title I schools (n=885) $4,559 (88.40) $3,485 (68.83) $338 (12.00) $736 (28.93) 

Non–Title I schools ((n=242) $4,642 (125.90) $3,565 (94.30) $317 (19.47) $759 (32.69) 

All schools: highest-poverty 

(75% or more) (n=505) $4,583 (150.96) $3,502 (112.08) $316 (10.60) $765 (39.26) 

All schools: moderate-poverty 

(35-75%) (n=394) $4,450 (101.09) $3,394 (77.26) $332 (17.14) $724 (23.80) 

All schools: lowest-poverty 

(less than 35%) (n=228) $4,708 (131.89) $3,622 (101.12) $327 (20.71) $759 (37.62) 

Title I schools: highest-poverty 

(75% or more) (n=501) $4,582 (151.73) $3,500 (112.70) $317 (10.63) $765 (39.46) 

Title I schools: moderatepoverty (35-75%) (n=308) $4,353 (96.14) $3,329 (69.83) $325 (15.15) $700 (26.86) 

Title I schools: lowest-poverty 

(less than 35%) (n=76) $4,992 (238.93) $3,816 (206.59) $406 (40.43) $771 (111.39) 

Title I schools identified for 

improvement (n=354) $4,806 (170.16) $3,608 (141.21) $360 (19.26) $838 (63.33) 

Title I non-identified schools 

(n=482) $4,417 (80.70) $3,444 (56.27) $313 (13.96) $661 (22.63) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 166 

Exhibit C.46 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: School-Level Personnel Expenditures per Student, 

by School Grade Level, Title I Status, and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

Total 

Expenditures per 

Student 

Instructional 

Expenditures 

per Student 

Instructional 

and Student 

Support 

Expenditures 

per Student 

Administration 

Expenditures 

per Student 

Elementary schools 

All schools (n=694) $4,461 (70.37) $3,489 (54.06) $310 (11.57) $662 (18.08) 

All Title I schools (n=609) $4,486 (74.78) $3,495 (54.52) $310 (11.77) $680 (21.84) 

Non–Title I schools (n=65) $4,385 (154.72) $3,470 (131.16) $308 (31.56) $607 (29.93) 

All schools: highest poverty (n=367) $4,426 (90.48) $3,435 (66.94) $300 (13.18) $691 (31.51) 

All schools: lowest poverty (n=104) $4,657 (133.25) $3,679 (113.08) $357 (18.47) $621 (24.65) 

Title I schools: highest poverty (n=365) $4,428 (90.89) $3,436 (67.25) $300 (13.24) $692 (31.69) 

Title I schools: lowest poverty (n=60) $4,682 (235.19) $3,679 (186.73) $384 (31.90) $619 (42.98) 

Title I schools identified for improvement 

(n=193) $4,594 (151.88) $3,493 (115.37) $327 (21.70) $774 (43.63) 

Title I non-identified schools (n=383) $4,475 (87.35) $3,523 (62.00) $302 (14.02) $650 (24.90) 

Middle schools 

All schools (n=223) $4,531 (95.42) $3,460 (80.78) $339 (16.30) $731 (25.21) 

All Title I schools (n=148) $4,137 (84.53) $3,115 (77.32) $333 (15.05) $688 (29.06) 

Non–Title I schools (n=75) $4,902 (159.40) $3,785 (129.59) $345 (28.97) $772 (41.46) 

All schools: highest-poverty (n=80) $4,377 (120.69) $3,226 (97.21) $320 (26.77) $831 (43.83) 

All schools: lowest-poverty (n=54) $5,057 (173.41) $3,967 (137.12) $358 (35.43) $732 (40.42) 

Title I schools: highest-poverty (n=78) $4,362 (121.88) $3,212 (97.94) $320 (27.07) $830 (44.32) 

Title I schools: lowest-poverty (n=7) $4,505 (156.15) $3,654 (106.12) $317 (72.77) $533 (24.10) 

Title I schools identified for improvement 

(n=89) $4,058 (127.02) $2,983 (104.71) $324 (20.24) $752 (33.79) 

Title I non-identified schools (n=53) $4,243 (94.47) $3,315 (84.60) $333 (24.04) $596 (23.86) 

High schools 

All schools (n=201) $4,698 (150.29) $3,564 (113.26) $329 (22.70) $805 (41.51) 

All Title I schools (n=104) $4,931 (229.72) $3,688 (199.51) $379 (36.65) $863 (76.98) 

Non–Title I schools (n=97) $4,610 (174.74) $3,518 (131.08) $309 (25.17) $783 (44.85) 

All schools: highest-poverty (n=44) $5,370 (619.45) $4,061 (465.61) $365 (16.25) $944 (147.86) 

All schools: lowest-poverty (n=66) $4,608 (187.84) $3,497 (142.55) $306 (29.10) $805 (54.22) 

Title I schools: highest-poverty (n=44) $5,370 (619.45) $4,061 (465.61) $365 (16.25) $944 (147.86) 

Title I schools: lowest-poverty (n=7) $5,288 (307.97) $3,862 (411.89) $432 (108.42) $993 (239.51) 

Title I schools identified for improvement 

(n=63) $5,520 (246.19) $4,155 (228.67) $410 (41.48) $954 (130.34) 

Title I non-identified schools (n=35) $4,211 (119.41) $3,185 (94.47) $313 (13.58) $713 (33.29) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 167 

Exhibit C.47 

Comparison of State and Local Resources: Number of FTE Staff per School of 500 Students, 

by School Grade Level, Title I Status, and School Poverty Level, 2004–05 

 All Staff 

Total 

Instructional 

Staff 

NonInstructional 

Staff 

Teacher 

Aides Teachers 

All schools 

All Title I schools (n=1,160) 46.4 (0.76) 33.8 (0.52) 12.6 (0.40) 5.0 (0.26) 28.8 (0.36) 

Non–Title I schools (n=885) 46.9 (0.99) 33.7 (0.67) 13.2 (0.46) 3.5 (0.22) 30.2 (0.58) 

All schools: highest-poverty 

(n=242) 46.9 (0.84) 34.3 (0.54) 12.6 (0.50) 5.1 (0.32) 29.2 (0.39) 

All schools: lowest-poverty 

(n=505) 45.2 (0.90) 32.8 (0.69) 12.4 (0.43) 3.8 (0.24) 29.0 (0.57) 

Title I identified schools (n=228) 44.8 (1.31) 31.6 (0.81) 13.2 (0.69) 3.8 (0.36) 27.8 (0.59) 

Title I non-identified schools 

(n=482) 47.2 (0.96) 35.2 (0.61) 12.0 (0.47) 5.7 (0.34) 29.5 (0.41) 

Elementary schools 

All Title I schools (n=609) 48.2 (0.96) 35.5 (0.61) 12.8 (0.48) 6.0 (0.34) 29.4 (0.40) 

Non–Title I schools (n=65) 48.9 (2.38) 36.7 (1.56) 12.3 (1.02) 6.1 (0.59) 30.5 (1.24) 

All schools: highest-poverty 

(n=367) 47.9 (1.03) 35.2 (0.63) 12.6 (0.65) 5.7 (0.42) 29.6 (0.42) 

All schools: lowest-poverty 

(n=104) 47.1 (1.46) 35.5 (1.12) 11.6 (0.55) 6.0 (0.51) 29.5 (0.78) 

Title I identified schools (n=193) 49.3 (1.49) 34.9 (0.92) 14.4 (0.89) 5.4 (0.62) 29.5 (0.68) 

Title I non-identified schools 

(n=383) 48.1 (1.17) 35.8 (0.72) 12.3 (0.56) 6.3 (0.40) 29.5 (0.46) 

Middle schools 

All Title I schools (n=148) 43.0 (1.01) 31.6 (1.10) 11.3 (0.49) 3.6 (0.56) 28.1 (0.73) 

Non–Title I schools (n=75) 48.1 (1.41) 34.4 (0.90) 13.7 (0.79) 3.4 (0.37) 31.0 (0.82) 

All schools: highest-poverty

(n=80) 43.4 (1.68) 31.6 (1.41) 11.8 (0.63) 3.8 (0.47) 27.8 (1.11) 

All schools: lowest-poverty (n=54) 47.7 (1.49) 34.7 (1.01) 13.0 (0.77) 3.4 (0.45) 31.3 (0.98) 

Title I identified schools (n=89) 40.2 (1.33) 28.5 (1.22) 11.7 (0.49) 2.7 (0.40) 25.8 (0.93) 

Title I non-identified schools 

(n=53) 45.6 (1.59) 35.0 (1.57) 10.6 (0.63) 4.6 (1.07) 30.4 (0.99) 

High schools 

All Title I schools (n=104) 42.0 (2.17) 29.1 (1.63) 12.8 (1.36) 2.4 (0.35) 26.8 (1.33) 

Non–Title I schools (n=97) 45.6 (1.38) 32.3 (0.96) 13.3 (0.64) 2.6 (0.23) 29.7 (0.87) 

All schools: highest-poverty 

(n=44) 42.3 (2.53) 30.8 (1.92) 11.5 (0.69) 2.2 (0.37) 28.6 (1.85) 

All schools: lowest-poverty (n=66) 42.9 (1.37) 30.3 (0.97) 12.6 (0.66) 2.5 (0.22) 27.8 (0.87) 

Title I identified schools (n=63) 42.3 (2.42) 29.5 (1.23) 12.8 (1.67) 2.2 (0.22) 27.3 (1.16) 

Title I non-identified schools 

(n=35) 41.3 (1.82) 30.4 (0.95) 10.9 (1.07) 2.7 (0.27) 27.7 (0.81) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 
 

Appendix C 168 

Exhibit C.48 

Comparison of Non–Title I Resources: Instructional Expenditures, 

Student-Teacher Ratio, and Average Teacher Salary in 

Highest- and Lowest-Poverty Schools, 2004–05 

 Instructional 

Expenditures Student-Teacher Ratio Average Teacher Salary 

 Highest-poverty schools (n=493) $3,502 (112.08) 19.0 (0.34) $43,170 (734.74) 

 Lowest-poverty schools (n=245) $3,622 (101.12) 18.6 (0.38) $47,910 (902.05) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, district personnel records. 

Exhibit C.49 

Comparison of Non–Title I Resources: Teacher Characteristics in 

Highest- and Lowest-Poverty Schools, 2004–05 

 Average Years of 

Teaching Experience 

Percent of Teachers 

With Fewer Than Three 

Years Experience 

Percent of Teachers With 

Master’s Degree or 

Higher 

 Highest-poverty schools 

 (n= 298 to 627) 12.4 (0.47) 14% (0.90) 44% (2.71) 

 Lowest-poverty schools 

 (n=93 to 288) 14.7 (0.42) 7% (1.47) 58% (2.46) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, teacher surveys. 

Exhibit C.50 

Comparison of Non–Title I Resources: Secondary Teachers and Degree 

in the Field They Teach, 2004–05 

 

Percentage of 

Secondary Teachers 

With a Degree in Math or 

English

Percent of Secondary 

English Teachers With a 

Degree in the Field They 

Teach 

Percent of Secondary 

Math Teachers With a 

Degree in the Field They 

Teach 

 Highest-poverty schools 

 (n=78 to 92 ) 56% (4.24) 59% (5.73) 47% (5.51) 

 Lowest-poverty schools 

 (n=43 to 58 ) 60% (3.18) 63% (4.54) 55% (4.43) 

Source: NLS-NCLB, teacher surveys. 
 

Appendix D 169 

APPENDIX D. 

DISTRIBUTION OF TITLE I SCHOOLS IN NLS AND CCD DATASETS 

In Chapter II, the analysis of the percentages of schools receiving Title I funds shows differences in 

the percentages of high- and low-poverty schools classified as Title I when different data sources are 

used for the same year. In theory, the NLS and the CCD datasets, which both include large samples of 

schools (indeed, the CCD is intended to be a universe of all public elementary and secondary schools), 

might be expected to yield similar estimates of the percentages of schools that receive Title I funds. To 

further explore this issue, we examined the set of 13,184 schools that were included in both the NLS and 

CCD data sets, including 8,780 Title I schools that were included in both data sets, to compare the 

Title I status and school poverty level indicated for each school in each of the two data sets. 

Overall, among the schools that districts reported to the NLS as Title I schools, 86 percent were 

classified in the 2003–04 CCD data set (reported by states) as Title I schools, while 10 percent were 

classified in the CCD as non–Title I schools; a small number (36) were missing Title I status, and 

302 schools (3 percent) were not included in the CCD database (see Exhibit D.1). 

Exhibit D.1 

Distribution of Title I Schools Included in the NLS Study Sample for 2004–05, 

by School Poverty Level and by Their Title I Status as Reported in the 

NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) for 2003–04 

School Poverty 

Level 

NLS Study 

Sample of 

Title I Schools 

Title I Status as Reported in the 2003–04 CCD 

Title I Schools Non– Title I Schools 

Title I Status 

Missing 

Schools Not 

Included in CCD 

 N N % N % N % N % 

All 8,780 7,589 86% 853 10% 36 0% 302 3% 

75% or more 5,095 4,763 93% 242 5% 7 0% 83 2% 

50% to <75% 2,566 2,106 82% 313 12% 7 0% 140 5% 

35% to <50% 687 503 73% 161 23% 6 1% 17 2% 

Less than 35% 374 212 57% 136 36% 16 4% 10 3% 

Missing poverty 58 5 9% 1 2% * 0% 52 90% 

Note: percentages within each row may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: NCES Common Core of Data, 2003–04; NLS-NCLB, school allocations, 2004–05 (n=8,780 Title I schools). 

Among the highest-poverty schools, Title I status was mostly consistent across the two data sources 

(93 percent), while low-poverty schools showed larger discrepancies between the two data sources. For 

example, of the 374 lowest-poverty schools in the NLS study sample that districts identified as 

Title I schools for the NLS 2004–05 data collection, only 57 percent were classified in the 2003–04 CCD 

as Title I schools, and 36 percent were classified as non–Title I schools.51 The two data sources also 

 

51 The 2003–04 CCD data were used in these analyses as it corresponded to the school year when district federal 

program consolidated applications were submitted for the FY 2004 federal funding. It is important to recognize that the 

only data available at the time these applications were submitted would have been from the previous year, because the 
 

Appendix D 170 

contained inconsistent school poverty rates for some of the individual schools that were included in both 

data sets. Among the 13,184 schools included in the both the NLS and CCD data sets (including both 

Title I and non–Title I schools), 76 percent were classified in both data sets as being in the same school 

poverty category. For example, among schools that the NLS classified in the highest poverty group 

(with poverty levels of 75 percent or higher), 77 percent were classified by the CCD as being in the 

highest poverty category, 6 percent were classified as being in lower poverty groups, and 17 percent were 

missing school poverty level in the CCD (see Exhibit D.2). 

Exhibit D.2 

Distribution of Title I Schools Included in the NLS Study Sample for 2004–05, 

by School Poverty Level as Reported in the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) for 2003–04 

School Poverty 

Level 

NLS Study 

Sample 

School Poverty Level as Reported in the 2003–04 CCD 

75% or More 50%-<75% 35%-<50% Less than 

35% 

Missing 

Poverty 

 N N % N % N % N % N % 

All 13,184 4,315 33% 2,632 20% 1,297 10% 2,662 20% 2,278 17% 

75% or more 5,325 4,114 77% 179 3% 31 1% 91 2% 910 17% 

50% to <75% 3,275 180 6% 2317 71% 74 2% 41 1% 663 20% 

35% to <50% 1,442 6 0% 106 7% 1103 76% 48 3% 179 12% 

Less than 35% 2,950 15 1% 30 1% 89 3% 2,482 84% 334 11% 

Missing poverty 192 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 192 100% 

Note: percentages within each row may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: NCES Common Core of Data, 2003–04; NLS-NCLB, school allocations, 2004–05 (n=13,184). 

In most cases, schools without a consistent school poverty level classification between the two data 

sources were due to missing school poverty data in the CCD data set. Across all schools that were in 

both the NLS and CCD data sets, 17 percent were missing poverty level information (2,278 schools). 

Among schools that had school poverty data in both data sets, 92 percent were classified in the same 

school poverty category in both data sets. 

Given the discrepancies discussed above, which of the two data sets provide more reliable data on 

the percentage of schools receiving Title I funds? The CCD data were collected from states, while the 

NLS data were collected from districts. The CCD data set includes a fairly sizable amount of missing 

data on school poverty rates. The NLS study team, after noting discrepancies between the two data 

sources, re-checked the numbers with some of the sample districts, and these districts generally verified 

the numbers originally obtained during the NLS data collection. However, for comparing trends over 

time, the CCD data may provide a more reliable indicator of change, because they provide a relatively 

consistent data collection methodology across different years. 

 applications were submitted prior to the year for which the funding was to be received. Therefore, it is expected that 

school poverty data would have been from 2003–04.