John,

I think there are several things going on. First, there's still a lot of money flowing through the Basic formula. Second, there are various hold-harmless provisions, small-state minimums, and other irrational but politically expendient provisions inhibiting the ability of the new formulas to work. Third, and most importantly, Title I still has a egregious and under-recognized flaw: while progress has been made in giving more funding to high-poverty districts, Title I still gives less funding to high-poverty states, because each district's allocation is a function of average state and local spending per student, and poor states spend less than rich states. As a result, there are a lot of districts in the highest poverty quartile that are benefitting from the formula changes but still getting screwed by the state per-pupil problem.

-KC

I stand by my comment as quoted in Education Week.

According to the Congressional Research Service, under the Basic Grant formula, the wealthiest quintile of school districts receive approximately 20.4% of all available funds as per that formula. Under the Targeted Assistance Grant and Education Finance Incentive Grant formulas, the wealthiest receive 13.9% and 13.5% of all available funds respectively as per those formulas. Likewise, under the Basic Grant formula, the poorest quintile of districts receives 19.9% of available funds. But under the Targeted Assistance and Education Finance Incentive Grant formulas, they receive 25.3% and 25.6% of all funds respectively. See CRS Report RL33731, Page 52. Note that the Education Finance Incentive Grant formula is slightly more targeted to districts than even the Targeted Grant Formula.

Why does the National Assessment report suggest there hasn't been an increase in targeting? Mainly because: (1) Congress repeatedly has made a decision since NCLB was passed to funnel _only_ "new money" (i.e. the increment of additional Title I funding provided above the Fiscal Year 2001 level) through the two most targeted formulas, and (2) the National Assessment analysis does not include _four_ of six funding years since NCLB was passed.

As the National Assessment indicates, an increase in targeting on a relatively small slice of the overall pot does not generate large percentage shifts in distribution. If you increase targeting by 20% on only 20% of the total pot of money, you've only increased targeting by 4% overall. Still a shift of 4% of $13 billion in Title I funding equals movement of more than $500 million to the poorest kids - a year. A shift of $500 million and growing each year is nothing at which to sneeze.

Further, the National Assessment examines a window of time that includes only a small fraction of the already relatively small new money. An cumulatively and increasingly large amount of Title I funding has flowed through the two most targeted formulas in the six fiscal years since NCLB was passed, four of which are outside the frame of reference of the National Assessment's analysis (not considered are FY 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007). The last year the National Assessment considers is school year 2004-2005, funds for which are provided in the FY 2003 appropriations bill.

CRS looks at respective shares under these formulas right now, today, and thus a time period most relevant to coming Appropriations Committee decisions about how to allocate all $13 billion in Title I funding. If Congress put all Title I money in the most targeted formula - the Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula - there would be a dramatic shift in funding. Instead for political reasons mainly, they've chosen to drive only new money through the two most targeted formulas. But new money is better than nothing. In fact, the decision is to be applauded.

In 1994, on behalf of Senator Pell and with the assistance of Senators Kennedy, Simon, Harkin, and then Congressman Jack Reed, I led an effort as a staffer in the Senate to create one formula that increased the targeting of all Title I money. That effort failed 13-14 in a Conference Committee vote. Seven years later, many of those Members along with Senators Landrieu and Lieberman tried again and succeeded at least with respect to new money. These formulas all still could be improved. Kevin above and David Hoff on his superb blog, NCLB: Act II, note some of the ways. But we learned the hard way in 1994 that you aspire for the great, but you never let it be an enemy of the good. A lot of very poor kids lost out because we failed in 1994. With the passage of NCLB's targeting provisions in 2001, there was a modest, but still notable and not well known success.