Title I funding has played a crucial role in American education since its implementation in the 1960s. It helps pay teachers’ salaries and purchase technology to streamline learning. Title I is also used to assist students who may not be offered the same opportunities as those in other school districts.

However, there has been discussion about shutting down the Federal Department of Education, which oversees the Title I program. Some Republicans advocate for school decision-making to go to the states. This would allow states to have full control over what the funds are being used for and how they educate their students.

 Why It’s Newsworthy: Title I is an important part of United States public education. As Trump gears up to be inaugurated, it’s important to know what could happen while he is in office.  

What is Title I funding?

Title I funding is money that comes from the federal government to support students in underprivileged areas. The Georgia Department of Education defines Title I as “supplemental funding to support educators in improving the academic achievement of students who are econom​ically and educationally disadvantaged.” All states receive Title I funding, and it varies from state to state how much they receive. 

 

Title I is the largest federally funded program for elementary, middle and high schools, according to the Georgia Department of Education. In fiscal year 2023, the Federal Department of Education spent $18.4 billion in Title I funding. 

The program started after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. Title I funding was a part of the ESEA and was originally started with the goal in mind of “providing funding to school districts so that all children could have access to a basic education,” according to the ESEA website.

The ESEA was reauthorized and revamped in 2015 by former President Obama to become the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA grants money to State Education Agencies (SEAs), who then delegate the money to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), as stated on the Georgia Department of Education website. 

Title I funding is used for numerous programs. A lot of schools use it to pay support staff, purchase technology to help their students, provide accommodations to students who are learning English or have disabilities among other things. Clarke Central High School received $341,568 in fiscal year 2024. They used $270,078 of that for salaries and benefits of teachers, and $71,490 of it for instructional support, including supplies, professional learning, travel and family engagement. 

Parents do have a say in how some of the Title I money gets delegated. Clarke County School District has a plan to engage parents by including them in allocation decisions, and some of the schools in Clarke County had individual plans to keep parents involved.

Read more about how money gets from the Federal Department of Education to local schools by clicking/tapping on the image below and scrolling.

The Department of Education restricts what that Title I funding can be used for. Funding can be used for school-wide programs (SWP) or can be used for more individualized student needs, or targeted assistance programs (TAP). According to Positive Action, a program designed to help students have better social skills in the classroom, SWPs can use the funds to serve the entire student population, while TAPs assist students who are identified as failing or at-risk of failing.

Each county in the state of Georgia gets some form of Title I funding, and the allocations aren’t even. Some receive more funding, while others receive less. The division is based on how many students are considered a part of low-income families, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

The ESSA details how the schools can apply for the money. It comes to the schools in the form of grants, and when schools apply, they must explain how they will use the money to improve their schools. The LEA applies to the SEA, and describes how they will use the money for improvement/implementation of school programs, how they might shift some things around to accommodate for those improvements and how they will monitor how each individual school uses the money. 

What if the Federal Department of Education is Shut Down?

One of the planks of the Republican party platform is to “Cultivate great k-12 schools leading to great jobs and great lives for young people.” They state that universal school choice is an important part of this cultivation. Universal school choice is when parents are given options for schooling for their children, which doesn’t have to be public schools. Under this headline, they list out the nine steps they want to take to help ensure that this happens; No. 9 is moving education back to the states and to close the U.S. Department of Education. 

Project 2025, a proposal by far-right conservatives, details a more extreme version of what the Republican party might do: 

Transfer Title I, Part A, which provides federal funding for lower income school districts, to the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically the Administration for Children and Families. It should be administered as a no-strings-attached formula block grant.

Wisconsin Senate candidate Eric Hovde, who lost in the Nov. 5 election, said the Federal Department of Education is “one of the worst monstrosities that’s ever been created.” In Ohio and Montana, Senators-elect Bernie Moreno and Tim Sheehy both advocated to get rid of the Federal Department of Education as well. 

Weadé James, an author and writer for the Center for American Progress, says that “they [Republicans who support Project 2025] are basically wanting to repeal” Title I funding over the next 10 years if enacted. 

“What that essentially means is that the burden of responsibility to educate low-income students, students in high-income communities with high concentrations of poverty, that burden will fall solely on states and local districts,” she said. 

While Title I is responsible for 10% of funding that goes to schools federally, if it were to be repealed, that funding would be left to the states to make up. In Georgia, that would mean a gap of about $674,982,259 annually.

James thinks that this gap would be very difficult for states to fill.

Some states have been moving away from looking at funding based on a resource need and enrollment count. While a lot of schools still determine their budget this way, states such as Maryland and Mississippi leaned their focus toward a more student-based level. 

“Mississippi passed a new school funding legislation that’s going to be redesigning how they’re funding schools,” James said, “looking at students’ needs, like poverty as a factor, language as a factor, and a few other things.” 

Scaling back Title I funding can have a direct impact on schools and change what every day would look like. There might be higher student-to-teacher ratios, English learners might not get the support they need, long-term substitutes may need to fill gaps and more. 

James thinks there is a possibility that parents may shift to more private and homeschooling options. She thinks that might be part of the reason that some parents are in support of the school choice movement; as parents raise questions about if their child is getting a “quality education” because of the threat of removing funding, parents might start to consider different options for schooling.

However, James said just because someone is paying tuition doesn’t necessarily give them a better education or better resources.

“Private does not mean quality,” James said. “And having that choice doesn’t mean that you have access to quality choice options.”

Ashlyn Carroll is a senior majoring in journalism.