Title I funding allocation of reserve funds after increased standards for academic proficiency under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

This study was designed to examine state and division-level changes in Virginia Title I discretionary spending as proficiency standards increased under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The study was also designed to identify some characteristics of Virginia school divisions that changed Title I discretionary spending as proficiency standards increased. The study was also meant to indicate whether end-of-course test (SOL) results may have influenced spending the following year.;This study included all 49 Virginia school divisions that had schools participating in the Title I Schoolwide Program from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008. Data was collected through the Virginia Department of Education through a Freedom of Information Act request. Title I discretionary spending was reported at the state and division level for the 5-year period.;A correlation analysis was conducted to compare state-level spending proportions in each of the Title I discretionary areas with proficiency standards under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The correlation analysis revealed a strong linear relationship between spending and academic proficiency standards in the areas of school improvement (r = 0.866) and administration (r = -0.755).;A correlation analysis was then conducted to compare division-level spending in the six discretionary areas with academic proficiency standard. A strong linear relationship was not observed in any area of discretionary spending. School divisions were then separated by size and also by location. A correlation analysis was performed to compare previous year's SOL scores to spending in each of the discretionary areas under Title I. Several division size or location categories returned consistent correlation values over the 5-year period for specific areas of spending.;The results of this study showed that spending and academic proficiency standard have a strong linear relationship at the state level, but not at the division level. Further, while certain division size and location categories returned consistent correlation values between previous year's standardized test scores and spending in specific Title I discretionary areas, the relationship was often consistently weak. It is unlikely that the SOL scores drove discretionary spending under Title I the following year.