Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program

Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child Differs

Chester E. Finn, Jr.
2.13.2002

General Accounting Office
January 31, 2002

A recent report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) examines the flow of Title I dollars to schools attended by low-income children. It responds to a Congressional mandate for GAO to review Title I allocations in terms of how precisely these dollars reach the schools with the most poor kids. This is strictly an examination of the flow of funds, not the benefit produced by or effectiveness of Title I-funded interventions. The GAO found (using 1999-2000 data) that Title I's "complex allocation process resulted in differences in actual funding per poor child among states, school districts, and schools." Indeed, analysts encountered "many instances of states, districts, and schools with either similar numbers or similar percentages of poor children receiving widely differing amounts of funding per poor child." There are many reasons for these variations, including arcane, multi-factor formulas, the persistence of local discretion in allocating Title I funds among individual schools, and "factors other than numbers of poor children [that] are included in Education's formula calculation, for example, the amount a state spends on education." The GAO also notes that "The allocation of Title I funds does not encourage states to target their own funds to children from low-income families. [There are] no monetary, statutory, or regulatory incentive[s] for them to do so." GAO suggests various ways by which Congress could change this but, of course, any of them would also have the effect of taking money from somewhere else. It seems to me odd, even fishy, that, although GAO says they briefed relevant Congressional committees in March 2001 on the "preliminary" results of this work, this report came out after Congress had finished its work on the No Child Left Behind act. It smacks of ringing the fire alarm after the house has burned down. But you might want to see for yourself-the report number is GAO-02-242-and can do so by surfing to the abstract at http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?recflag=&accno=A02642&rptno=GAO-02-242.

Tags: Government Accountability Office United States Congress

Chester E. Finn, Jr., scholar, educator and public servant, has devoted his career to improving education in the United States. At Fordham, he is now Distinguished Senior Fellow and President Emeritus. He’s also a Volker Senior Fellow at…

View Full Bio
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]