Unfunded Mandate of NCLB and Title I The federal government contributes only a "relatively small share of school and district revenues" and in fact less than 10%, however, federal regulations that detail how funds are to be spent by the schools "exert a tremendous impact on school district management behavior and operations." (Center for American Progress, 2011)

The Federal government contributes only a very small portion of funding for state schools however, the federal government places a great deal of pressure on schools because of this funding and as such impacts the countries schools methods of management and makes stringent requirements on student achievement.

Title I Funding

The intentions of Title I funding is to provide "additional educational services to the neediest students in an LEA." (Center for American Progress, 2011) When Title I funding first began the manner in which the LEA spent the Title I funding was left to the discretion of the states and districts however, not long after ESEA was passed by Congress "it was predictably (re)discovered that money is fungible and not all LEAs were necessarily focused on using their allocated Title I dollars to help their neediest students." (Center for American Progress, 2011) The result is that in the late 1960s the federal government "instituted regulations that attempt to solve three fundamental problems" stated as follows:

(1) Understanding how the Federal Government could make sure that Title I monies are effectively spent;

(2) Understanding how the federal government can make sure that Title I monies are targeted...

(Center for American Progress, 2011)
Stated as reasons that Title I has failed to accomplish its desired goals are the following reasons:

(1) Inadequate federal funding and targeting: Current Title I funding levels may simply not be sufficient to meet the substantial needs of schools serving disadvantaged students, and compensate for inadequate and inequitable local education funding.

(2) Challenges in ensuring resources reach disadvantaged schools and students: Evidence suggests that Title I funds distributed to districts do not necessarily result in schools having more financial resources with which to serve disadvantaged children. Title I funds may be supplanting state and local funding, effectively reducing the impact of Title I revenue.

(3) Districts face difficulties in designing and implementing effective Title I programs: At the district and school level, there is a lack of knowledge about what does and does not work to improve the achievement of disadvantaged students, and how to use Title I funds to implement effective programs. As a result, not enough Title I money supports high-impact, research-based programs and educational practices.

(4) Measurement and evaluation of the impact of Title I programs are lacking: Evaluation efforts to isolate the effects of particular Title I programs and practices are only beginning to emerge. Without quality evaluation…