In fiscal year 2008, NCLB programs were funded at $24.4 billion. Almost $14 billion was dedicated to Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, the largest NCLB program. Funding levels for selected NCLB programs from 2001 to present are shown below.

No Child Left Behind Funding, Selected Programs

($ in millions)

*Excludes economic stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

"Full Funding": Authorization vs. Appropriation

Education advocacy groups often criticize Congress and the President for not "fully funding" NCLB programs, particularly Title I, during the appropriations process. They define "full funding" using the authorization levels stated in the original NCLB legislation. Authorization levels in the legislation set the maximum amount at which Congress may fund a program in each year.

In contrast, appropriation levels reflect the amount of money Congress actually spends on a program. The law does not require the federal government to appropriate funds at the maximum authorized levels. In fact, Congress has never appropriated the maximum authorized funding level for Title I since NCLB was enacted in 2002. This is a common practice for legislation that includes authorized levels.

Congress authorized specific five year funding levels for five of the 45 authorized NCLB programs, totaling $28.9 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 ($25 billion for Title I, Part A). The other 40 programs were authorized at specific amounts for the initial year of funding and at "such sums as may be necessary" for following years through 2007. When a frozen level of funding is assumed for these 40 programs, the total authorized level for NCLB is commonly cited at $39.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2007.

The Title I, Part A grant program is the largest source of NCLB funding for school districts and is one of the five programs authorized at specific levels through Fiscal Year 2007. (The 2007 authorization level was automatically extended for one year to cover 2008.) In the past, most reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act have not included specific year by year authorization levels. Instead, the legislation has set an authorized funding level for the first year and "such sums as may be necessary" for succeeding years.

Since 2001, traditional federal appropriations for Title I have remained fairly flat, while the authorized levels in the legislation increase by $2 billion to $2.5 billion each year. As a result, Title I appropriations have become a smaller and smaller percentage of the authorized levels since NCLB's passage-from 76% of the authorized level in Fiscal Year 2002 to 56% of the authorized level in Fiscal Year 2008.

"Unfunded Mandates"

Because states are required to fulfill extensive accountability requirements to receive NCLB funding, they have argued, unsuccessfully, that NCLB is an "unfunded mandate." For example, the State of Connecticut sued the federal government in 2005 for allegedly requiring the state to spend millions of state dollars on additional NCLB testing. A federal judge dismissed Connecticut's lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, effectively ending the state's challenge.

However, NCLB does not mandate that states participate in the program. All requirements are a condition of funds. While a state may struggle financially without federal education funding, it could choose to opt out of NCLB and the requirements it includes. As a result, it is inaccurate to refer to NCLB as an "unfunded mandate." The law's requirements only apply to those states that voluntarily elect to participate.

"Under-funding" and NCLB

When NCLB was passed, the Department of Education assured states that federal funding would cover a significant portion of the costs associated with the law's new requirements. These new costs-for test administration, data collection, and school improvement reforms-have been significant. States often claim that NCLB is "under-funded" due to evidence that the federal government has not adequately supported these implementation costs.

Several state legislatures have requested estimates of the total cost of fully implementing NCLB and reaching the legislation's goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014 in their state. In Ohio, for example, a study estimated that the state would have to spend about $1.5 billion more on education each year to meet NCLB's additional accountability requirements and achievement goals. In Fiscal Year 2006, Ohio received $634 million from the federal government for NCLB programs.

In cases where schools repeatedly fail to meet NCLB's academic goals, they are required to undergo improvement or restructuring. The cost of improvement for failing schools, including intensive academic support for failing students, is difficult to estimate. Because there are many ways to raise student achievement, identifying the most effective type of intervention for a specific school is challenging. As a result, many disagree over the true cost of "turning around" schools.

In recent years, NCLB Title I funding has not covered minimal school improvement costs in some states. Although NCLB requires states to dedicate 4 percent of their Title I funds to turning around failing schools many states have been unable to set aside this percentage because of a "hold harmless" provision in the law. The hold harmless provision effectively prevents states from lowering a Title I district’s grant amount from one year to the next. In other words, states are required to maintain a certain level of funding per district from year to year even if a district’s Title I population has decreased. Because federal funding for Title I has remained fairly flat and the hold harmless provision prevents states from redistributing funds from districts that no longer need them, states may struggle to provide sufficient Title I funds to districts whose poor populations have increased.

Both the hold harmless provision and stagnant NCLB funding in recent years have compromised states’ abilities to reserve the full 4 percent of funding for school improvement. In 2007-08, 29 states were unable to reserve the full 4 percent. Three states—Florida, Hawaii, and West Virginia—were not able to set aside any money for school improvement at all. To ensure funding for intervention efforts, President Bush and Congress created a separate funding stream specifically for school improvement. In Fiscal Year 2007, Congress appropriated $125 million for these new "School Improvement" Grants.