What is the Title I Education Program? Five things to know about the Largest K-12 Federal Education Program for Schools
Overview
Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, more commonly called “Title I,” is the largest federal K-12 education program. Established in 1965 under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title I is designed to ensure that all children—regardless of socioeconomic status—have access to a fair, equitable, and high-quality education. Its core mission is to close achievement gaps and promote educational opportunity.
There are five programs in Title I:
- Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) (Part A)
- State Assessment Grants (Part B)
- Education of Migratory Children (Part C)
- Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent or At‑Risk (Part D)
- Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding (Part E)
This explainer focuses on Title I Part A funds, which are intended to improve schools and student outcomes in higher poverty communities. While it is built on complex formulas to achieve different policy objectives and narrow funding gaps, its purpose is to improve outcomes. Given that the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows that the test scores of the lowest achieving students are continuing to decline, it is important to understand Title I and its role in supporting student outcomes.
To receive Title I funds, states must submit a comprehensive plan to the U.S. Department of Education. These plans must describe how states will meet federal assessment and accountability requirements and ensure that students are prepared for college and careers. Title I requires states to assess students annually in grades 3-8 and once in high school and share the data with parents and the public in state and district report cards. These requirements ensure that states receiving federal dollars are measuring student progress, holding schools accountable for outcomes, and communicating student achievement results to families and the public. Once states receive the funds, how do those funds help schools? Here are five things to know about how Title I Grants to LEAs work.
1. Title I is a Program Intended to Support Local Programs in Areas of Concentrated Poverty
Title I is allocated to states on the basis of a formula using poverty counts from Census data. States in turn allocate funds to LEAs based on federal formulas. It serves approximately 26 million students in 90% of school districts and nearly 60 percent of all public schools. Through four separate formulas, eligible LEAs receive an allocation from their state to distribute to schools (Figure 1). Three of the formulas consider state per-pupil expenditures in addition to poverty rates. The largest allocation funds Basic Grants, which accounts for most school districts receiving at least a small amount of funds. Other formulas account for concentrations or high numbers of students living in poverty. The Education Finance Incentive Grant formula is focused on states with more equitable funding districts. Although most districts qualify for some amount of funds, Figure 2 shows that the majority of resources flow to districts with at least 16% poverty. (For more details on the formula allocation process, see our explainer.)
Not every school eligible for Title I receives funding. LEAs must first allocate Title I funds to schools with poverty rates above 75%, in rank order of poverty, regardless of grade level (including middle and high schools). If there are funds left, they can allocate funds based on poverty to schools, as long as those schools have a poverty percentage equal to or greater than the district-wide poverty percentage. Schools with at least 35% poverty may also be served at the discretion of the LEA, even if that is lower than the district average.
Students who count for formula purposes are called “formula eligible children” to make this distinction between students served and students who are counted. Based on FY 2026 budget data, the overall allocation per “formula child” is $2,115, with a slightly higher amount ($2,395) going to schools above 25% poverty, and less for lower poverty schools ($1,802).
Congress has increased appropriations since 2010, but when adjusted for inflation resources have declined. Since 2010, funding has increased by $3.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, however, funding has declined (Figure 3).
2. Title I Funds are Flexible for Schools and Can be Used to Serve Students Regardless of Poverty Status
Once a school qualifies for Title I funds, it must use Title I funds to support students who are struggling to meet state standards. In other words, the statute does not require a school to focus funds on students living in poverty. (See ESEA Sec. 1115 (c)).
Schools with lower poverty rates may choose to use funds for services to specific students – such as by providing tutoring or small group interventions for students who are performing below grade level. Schools may also consolidate their Title I funds with all their other federal program funds (including IDEA funds for students with disabilities) to provide academic programming, professional development, and other supports to the whole school.
Schools with more than 40% of their students in poverty or that have a waiver can operate a Title I “schoolwide” program and can use funds to improve the program of the whole school. Those schools can also consolidate all of their federal Title funds to improve the whole school.
3. Title I Supports Students in Private Schools
Support for students in areas of poverty who are struggling academically is not limited to public school students. Eligible students attending private schools may also receive Title I services, often called “equitable services.” ESEA section 117(a)(4)A) requires that what a district spends for students in private schools is equal to the “proportion of funds generated by children from low-income families who reside in participating public school attendance areas and attend private schools.” These services are typically delivered through public school districts in consultation with private school officials, based on the proportion of students in poverty attending a private school. This provision ensures that disadvantaged students in all educational settings have access to federally funded support.
4. Title I Funds School Improvement, Not Punishment
One of the common criticisms about the accountability provisions in Title I is that it penalizes low-performing schools. But Title I does not actually require districts to penalize low-performing schools. Instead, it provides targeted funding for school improvement efforts. These funds can be used for evidence-based interventions, professional development, specialized staff to provide supplemental instruction, and other strategies aimed at improving student achievement. The goal is to support struggling schools, not stigmatize them.
Title I requires states to set aside 7% of their allocation for school improvement activities, and they are required to provide funding to districts to support the lowest achieving schools that are identified for “comprehensive support and improvement” (CSI). How they provide the funding and whether they also provide funding to support these schools is up to the states.
5. Title I Requires Parent Engagement
Title I has always required parent engagement and consultation. Districts are required to set aside at least one percent of Title I funding to support family engagement activities, such as sharing information with parents and supporting family outreach and education programs. In addition, Title I requires districts to consult with parents of children attending Title I schools when developing plans for the use of Title I funds, and to implement effective strategies for engaging parents and families.
Conclusion
Title I is a program with formulas that attempt to ensure that funds go to schools that need the most help. But those funds are only impactful if they improve student outcomes.
While prescriptive in how funds flow to schools and the fiscal compliance requirements, Title I is extremely flexible at the school level. This flexibility makes evaluating its effectiveness challenging; therefore, impact on student outcomes is unclear. There is no question, however, that Title I is providing schools with significant resources to schools in higher concentrations of poverty. It is also clear, though, that the lowest achieving students are still struggling the most to recover from COVID learning loss.
link
