Contents

• Introduction
• Methodology for Determining Title I-A Grants
• Formula Child Count and Formula Child Rate
• Expenditure Factor
• State Adjustments to LEA Grant Amounts
• FY2025 Title I-A Grants

Summary

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $18.4 billion for FY2025. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families.

Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education determines Title I-A allocations to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants. State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in a state under all four formulas. The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs and states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others.

This report provides FY2025 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2025 Title I-A grant amount ($2.3 billion, or 12.47% of total Title I-A grants to states). Vermont received the smallest FY2025 Title I-A grant amount ($41.6 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants to states).

---

Introduction

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act ( P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. Title I-A is the largest program in the ESEA,¹ funded at $18.4 billion for FY2025. Title I-A is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A allocations to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). Grants to states are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas.²

This report provides FY2025 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants.³ For a general overview of the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R48890, Determining Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For a more detailed discussion of the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R48165, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas.

Methodology for Determining Title I-A Grants

Under Title I-A, ED allocates funds to LEAs via state educational agencies (SEAs) and using the four Title I-A formulas.⁴ Annual appropriations acts specify portions of each year's Title I-A appropriations to be allocated under each of the formulas. In FY2025, the ED Appropriations Act, 2025,⁵ provided $18.4 billion for the Title I-A program and designated 35.09% ($6.5 billion) of Title I-A appropriations for the Basic Grant formula, 7.40% ($1.4 billion) for the Concentration Grant formula, 28.75% ($5.3 billion) for the Targeted Grant formula, and 28.75% ($5.3 billion) for the EFIG formula.⁶ After reserving funds for the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the outlying areas as required under Title I-A, $18.2 billion was available for FY2025 Title I-A grants to LEAs.⁷ Once states allocate funds received from ED to LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined and used jointly by each LEA.

For each formula, grants are calculated using a formula child count, a formula child rate, and an expenditure factor. The EFIG formula has two additional factors that are used to calculate grant amounts.⁸

Formula Child Count and Formula Child Rate

Formula child counts used to determine Title I-A grants for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico include children ages 5-17 and meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) living in families in poverty, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program;⁹ (2) living in institutions for neglected or delinquent children or in foster homes; or (3) living in families with income above the federal poverty level that receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments.¹⁰ To obtain the percentage of children in an LEA who are formula children (also referred to as the formula child rate), the formula child count is divided by the total number of children ages 5-17 living in the LEA's geographic boundaries. For example, in an LEA with 200 formula children and 1,000 children ages 5-17, the formula child rate would be 20%. The data on the total number of children also are based on SAIPE estimates. In FY2025, children in poor families accounted for 97.11% of the total formula child count, which aligns with the first criterion listed above. Each element of the formula child count and formula child rate factors is updated annually.

In general, LEAs must have a minimum number of formula children, a minimum formula child rate, or both to be eligible to receive a grant under a specific Title I-A formula. Some LEAs may qualify for a grant under one of the formulas, and others may be eligible to receive grants under multiple formulas.

Expenditure Factor

For LEAs in a given state, the expenditure factor for all four Title I-A formulas is equal to state average per-pupil expenditures (APPE) for public elementary and secondary education,¹¹ subject to a minimum and a maximum percentage of the national average further multiplied by 0.40.¹² More specifically, a state's APPE is multiplied by 40% and then subject to a minimum of 80% and a maximum of 120% of 40% of the national APPE—referred to as the lower bound and upper bound, respectively—for the Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grant formulas. If a state's APPE multiplied by 40% falls below the lower bound, the state's expenditure factor is raised to the lower bound amount. If a state's APPE multiplied by 40% is above the upper bound, the state's expenditure factor is reduced to the upper bound amount. For EFIG, the minimum and maximum bounds for state APPE relative to 40% of the national APPE are 85% and 115%, respectively.¹³

The following example demonstrates the expenditure calculation for the Basic Grant, Concentration Grant, and Targeted Grant formulas.

Step One: Assume national APPE is $10,000. Multiplying this amount by 40% equals $4,000. The lower and upper bounds are established by multiplying $4,000 by 80% to produce a lower bound of $3,200 and multiplying $4,000 by 120% to produce an upper bound of $4,800.

Step Two: Assume state APPE is $14,000. Multiplying the amount by 40% equals $5,600. This amount is compared with the lower and upper bounds established in Step One. As $5,600 is higher than $4,800, the state's expenditure factor used in each of the formulas is reduced to the upper bound amount calculated in Step One (i.e., $4,800).

State Adjustments to LEA Grant Amounts

After calculating LEA grant amounts, ED provides these amounts to each state. States need to make adjustments to these LEA grant amounts to account for LEAs for which ED is unable to estimate Title I-A grant amounts, such as charter schools that operate as independent LEAs or newly formed LEAs.¹⁴ In addition, each state must reserve Title I-A funds for school improvement and may reserve Title I-A funds for administration and direct student services. Thus, the LEA grant amounts calculated by ED will likely be higher than what an LEA will actually receive after state adjustments and reservations are made.

FY2025 Title I-A Grants

Figure 1 depicts the composition of each state's Title I-A grant based on the share of total state funds received under each of the formulas. The figure also provides the amount of funding each state received under each of the formulas. The data in Figure 1 also are presented in Table A-1. State grant amounts also can be examined based on each state's share of the amount of funds available overall and under each of the formulas relative to other states. Table 1 provides each state's grant amount and relative percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas for FY2025. The latter was determined for each state by dividing the state's grant amount under that formula by the total amount of funding allocated to states for a given Title I-A formula. Table 1 also shows total Title I-A grants, calculated by summing the state-level grant for each of the four formulas, along with each state's relative percentage shares of total Title I-A grants.

In general, grant amounts for states vary across the Title I-A formulas because of the different allocation amounts for the formulas provided through the appropriations process and the characteristics of the formulas themselves. For example, with respect to appropriations for each of the formulas, the Basic Grant formula receives a greater share of overall Title I-A appropriations than the Concentration Grant formula, so states receive higher grant amounts and a greater share of their total Title I-A funds under the Basic Grant formula than under the Concentration Grant formula (Figure 1). With respect to formula characteristics,¹⁵ the amount of funding received under each formula is related in part to an LEA's, and by extension a state's, number or percentage of formula children. For example, while Nevada and Arizona had similar percentages of formula children and identical expenditure factors in FY2025, Arizona had a larger population of children included in the formula calculations than Nevada and therefore received a higher grant amount and larger share of Title I-A funds in FY2025 (Table 1).

States might have similar numbers of formula children but different expenditure factors, which would contribute to a lower Title I-A grant amount for the state with the lower expenditure factor. For example, Washington and Oklahoma had similar numbers of formula children in FY2025, but Washington had a higher expenditure factor. This difference contributed to Washington receiving a higher Title I-A grant and a larger share of Title I-A funds than Oklahoma (Table 1).

Different Title I-A formulas have different eligibility requirements for LEAs to receive a grant (e.g., minimum number of formula children, minimum formula child rate). This difference affects which LEAs receive funds under a particular Title I-A grant formula, thereby affecting the total amount of funding received by a state under a specific Title I-A formula. In addition, the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas use weighted formula child counts in determining LEA grant amounts.¹⁶ These differences can affect total state grant amounts.

Overall, California received the largest total Title I-A grant amount ($2.3 billion) and, as a result, the largest percentage share (12.47%) of Title I-A grants. Vermont received the smallest total Title I-A grant amount ($41.6 million) and, as a result, the smallest percentage share (0.23%) of Title I-A grants (Table 1).

Within a state, the relative percentage share of funds received from each formula may vary by formula, as certain formulas are more favorable to states with certain characteristics. For example, in addition to the formula features discussed above, the EFIG formula is generally more favorable to states with comparatively equal levels of spending per pupil among their LEAs.¹⁷ If a state's share of a given Title I-A formula exceeds its share of overall Title I-A funds, this is an indication that this particular formula was more favorable to the state than formulas for which the state's share of funds is below its overall share of Title I-A funds for the fiscal year being examined. For example, in FY2025, Florida received a higher percentage share of Concentration Grants and Targeted Grants than its overall share of Title I-A funds, indicating that the Concentration Grant and Targeted Grant formulas were more favorable to Florida than the Basic Grant or EFIG formulas. Utah, in contrast, received a higher percentage share of Basic Grants and EFIG than its overall share of Title I-A funds in FY2025, indicating that the Basic Grant and EFIG formulas are more favorable to Utah than the Concentration Grant or Targeted Grant formulas (Table 1).

Another factor affecting state grant amounts is the state minimum grant provision included in each of the four Title I-A formulas. The minimum grant provisions applicable to each of the Title I-A formulas provide states with different minimum shares of the funds allocated under the respective formulas. The highest minimum state grant shares are provided under Targeted Grants and EFIG, and lower minimum state grant shares are provided under Basic Grants and Concentration Grants. This is evident in the shares of each Title I-A formula grant provided to the six states that received a minimum grant under all four formulas in FY2025 (Alaska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming).¹⁸ Each of these states received a higher share of the total available funds under the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas than under the Basic Grant or Concentration Grant formulas. As a state may receive a state minimum grant amount under any or all of the formulas, Table 1 indicates which states received a minimum grant under each of the Title I-A formulas.

Figure 1 . FY2025 Title I-A State Grants by Amount and Share of Grant Provided Under Each Formula

Figure is interactive in HTML report version

<script src="https://code.highcharts.com/highcharts.js"></script> <script src="https://code.highcharts.com/modules/accessibility.js"></script>

STATE	TOTAL ALLOCATION ($thousands)	% OF STATE'S TOTAL ALLOCATION
All States	$18,199,382
Alabama	$302,357
Alaska	$52,426
Arizona	$318,188
Arkansas	$174,368
California	$2,269,377
Colorado	$177,564
Connecticut	$165,967
Delaware	$60,942
District of Columbia	$56,486
Florida	$973,451
Georgia	$650,352
Hawaii	$69,039
Idaho	$62,368
Illinois	$757,221
Indiana	$279,557
Iowa	$112,268
Kansas	$117,600
Kentucky	$307,243
Louisiana	$392,665
Maine	$61,747
Maryland	$296,506
Massachusetts	$302,606
Michigan	$583,085
Minnesota	$183,533
Mississippi	$228,977
Missouri	$247,628
Montana	$57,300
Nebraska	$78,513
Nevada	$156,101
New Hampshire	$50,823
New Jersey	$456,260
New Mexico	$153,539
New York	$1,481,788
North Carolina	$534,011
North Dakota	$48,188
Ohio	$650,509
Oklahoma	$242,039
Oregon	$176,937
Pennsylvania	$742,928
Puerto Rico	$411,642
Rhode Island	$59,581
South Carolina	$278,073
South Dakota	$57,746
Tennessee	$377,981
Texas	$1,808,606
Utah	$100,135
Vermont	$41,614
Virginia	$348,590
Washington	$315,039
West Virginia	$104,974
Wisconsin	$216,884
Wyoming	$46,058

<script type="text/javascript"> // Function to add styles dynamically function addStyle(css) { const style = document.createElement('style'); style.textContent = css; document.head.appendChild(style); } addStyle(` tr { border-bottom: 1px solid #D8D8D8; } .top { font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; padding: 0; margin: 0; } th { text-align: left; border-bottom: 1px solid #D8D8D8; vertical-align: bottom; font-weight:normal; } tr td { border-bottom: 1px solid #D8D8D8; } td { } .chart-container { height: 25px; width: auto; /* Can calculate like (100%-20px) */ padding-left: 15px; } `); //##### CRS THEME CODE START #####// //##### CRS Highcharts Theme v1.2 (5/10/2022) #####// Highcharts.theme = { colors: ['#0C90FC', '#003865', '#F1B434', '#7060A8', '#6CC8BD', '#757048', '#B4C7D0', '#D36127'], chart: {backgroundColor: 'white',}, title: { style: { color: 'black', font: '15px "Calibri", Verdana, sans-serif', fontWeight: 'bold' } }, subtitle: { style: { color: 'black', font: '14px "Calibri", Verdana, sans-serif' }}, credits: { enabled: false }, legend: { itemStyle: { fontFamily: '"Calibri", Verdana, sans-serif', fontSize: '14px', color: 'black', "text-decoration": 'none !important' }, verticalAlign: 'top', itemMarginBottom: 7, }, yAxis: { title: { style: { font: '14px "Calibri", Verdana, sans-serif', fontWeight: 'bold', color: 'black'} }, labels: { style: { font: '14px "Calibri", Verdana,sans-serif', color: 'black'}}, }, xAxis: { title: { style: { font: '14px "Calibri", Verdana, sans-serif', fontWeight: 'bold', color: 'black'}, y: 8 }, labels: { style: { font: '14px "Calibri", Verdana, sans-serif', color: 'black' }, }, lineColor: 'black', lineWidth: 0.5 } }; Highcharts.setOptions(Highcharts.theme); //Applies thousands comma, and universal Calibri Highcharts.setOptions({ lang: {thousandsSep: ','}, chart: {style: {fontFamily: 'Calibri'}}, exporting: { enabled: false } }); //##### CRS THEME CODE END #####// // Build the chart let data = [ //Change 'All States' to 'Total' {container: 'Total', stateName: 'Total', data: [6383402589, 1347315689, 5234331950, 5234331950] }, {container: 'AL', stateName: 'Alabama', data: [104629354.489097, 25867602.7656808, 82887725.0352481, 88972262.6074237] }, {container: 'AK', stateName: 'Alaska', data: [17472059.8716383, 2406359.3106241, 16334451.983615, 16213320.6860987] }, {container: 'AZ', stateName: 'Arizona', data: [114829495.384896, 23299440.5354402, 87523953.2144259, 92535001.6621215] }, {container: 'AR', stateName: 'Arkansas', data: [62900625.3691257, 14745983.2376593, 44257446.7276284, 52463656.4877598] }, {container: 'CA', stateName: 'California', data: [811799574.766411, 160530545.720923, 671290683.166419, 625755983.280269] }, {container: 'CO', stateName: 'Colorado', data: [67456443.2998266, 9549098.56042597, 47962673.0703714, 52595463.5510921] }, {container: 'CT', stateName: 'Connecticut', data: [62732580.5218083, 11308266.3170502, 39550515.4041096, 52376041.2311529] }, {container: 'DE', stateName: 'Delaware', data: [20785410.1182722, 3516758.2517075, 18320161.825, 18320161.825] }, {container: 'DC', stateName: 'District of Columbia', data: [17744098.405, 4282808.41718299, 17303810.7305161, 17154909.4736917] }, {container: 'FL', stateName: 'Florida', data: [308730785.560189, 79026389.2711177, 321674348.543744, 264019180.410848] }, {container: 'GA', stateName: 'Georgia', data: [222931839.126344, 54605330.769076, 191950068.672319, 180864466.510489] }, {container: 'HI', stateName: 'Hawaii', data: [22388271.9083763, 5027676.57061697, 20594416.6443155, 21028607.5368904] }, {container: 'ID', stateName: 'Idaho', data: [23151889.5256636, 2575831.87685475, 18320161.825, 18320161.825] }, {container: 'IL', stateName: 'Illinois', data: [275155915.57704, 55078110.6373904, 220521822.177094, 206465636.932785] }, {container: 'IN', stateName: 'Indiana', data: [104362894.875071, 19757287.4683589, 69975956.7206865, 85460787.6456057] }, {container: 'IA', stateName: 'Iowa', data: [43717978.2053116, 6681951.44785319, 25402326.3127283, 36466130.5875075] }, {container: 'KS', stateName: 'Kansas', data: [44818301.2189996, 8201605.16261123, 29308969.3021004, 35271249.1343505] }, {container: 'KY', stateName: 'Kentucky', data: [106267413.350301, 25753697.8505193, 83570793.3500394, 91651002.0244617] }, {container: 'LA', stateName: 'Louisiana', data: [131191285.940299, 34191687.4996713, 116544053.499577, 110737666.002142] }, {container: 'ME', stateName: 'Maine', data: [21437957.3683515, 3668309.27541331, 18320161.825, 18320161.825] }, {container: 'MD', stateName: 'Maryland', data: [99121797.7883868, 21815420.2750846, 92877653.8408671, 82690900.5538569] }, {container: 'MA', stateName: 'Massachusetts', data: [114888347.122229, 20300365.5001803, 76657448.5427175, 90759418.9211157] }, {container: 'MI', stateName: 'Michigan', data: [205283605.248411, 42457608.6457691, 156997493.743895, 178345959.108765] }, {container: 'MN', stateName: 'Minnesota', data: [73754068.5604143, 8465163.61652834, 45033396.5757006, 56280672.3493864] }, {container: 'MS', stateName: 'Mississippi', data: [78957934.6643608, 19411315.9503954, 66132484.2427536, 64475609.8406909] }, {container: 'MO', stateName: 'Missouri', data: [95714453.0519532, 19424717.1983899, 62868937.1128106, 69619903.6754136] }, {container: 'MT', stateName: 'Montana', data: [17744098.405, 2915407.04996187, 18320161.825, 18320161.825] }, {container: 'NE', stateName: 'Nebraska', data: [30564435.9103764, 5150057.33717037, 21096465.5205311, 21702005.864961] }, {container: 'NV', stateName: 'Nevada', data: [47454928.6472091, 12148277.0874797, 54610554.1149534, 41886882.5170832] }, {container: 'NH', stateName: 'New Hampshire', data: [17330528.0127578, 2024575.27947674, 15283228.0066492, 16185009.0930673] }, {container: 'NJ', stateName: 'New Jersey', data: [170057155.65383, 31169076.8307928, 115097966.761193, 139936234.830387] }, {container: 'NM', stateName: 'New Mexico', data: [51581263.0248966, 13343031.9566307, 43770432.9565049, 44844645.5999425] }, {container: 'NY', stateName: 'New York', data: [487224486.018212, 111818244.523778, 487285210.749762, 395460516.30856] }, {container: 'NC', stateName: 'North Carolina', data: [180718603.652067, 44218164.871703, 153150039.21182, 155924423.285899] }, {container: 'ND', stateName: 'North Dakota', data: [16028880.6806918, 2000723.58497021, 15071122.6378455, 15087706.5438016] }, {container: 'OH', stateName: 'Ohio', data: [233948003.656142, 48197356.4111499, 173115751.926214, 195247559.512082] }, {container: 'OK', stateName: 'Oklahoma', data: [86695626.4866946, 19571651.1476923, 64919745.7460568, 70851961.4303277] }, {container: 'OR', stateName: 'Oregon', data: [67194480.0318144, 10353302.604028, 42461061.6841913, 56928587.250174] }, {container: 'PA', stateName: 'Pennsylvania', data: [269859046.194089, 52585845.5436109, 203333759.334075, 217148988.628569] }, {container: 'PR', stateName: 'Puerto Rico', data: [137736060.753385, 35812480.0641008, 117736136.331918, 120357762.038544] }, {container: 'RI', stateName: 'Rhode Island', data: [19562683.0671156, 3378478.57, 18320161.825, 18320161.825] }, {container: 'SC', stateName: 'South Carolina', data: [95958308.8906234, 23208175.5468104, 77336370.8487039, 81570275.4836041] }, {container: 'SD', stateName: 'South Dakota', data: [17744098.405, 3361525.52418514, 18320161.825, 18320161.825] }, {container: 'TN', stateName: 'Tennessee', data: [131295509.340762, 30601523.2530924, 108734886.635502, 107349084.80026] }, {container: 'TX', stateName: 'Texas', data: [616040902.053716, 142645684.859673, 536061918.861125, 513857570.089033] }, {container: 'UT', stateName: 'Utah', data: [37250880.6596753, 4031062.43491608, 27818619.2571028, 31034929.714223] }, {container: 'VT', stateName: 'Vermont', data: [13649585.25778, 2016415.48925082, 12872855.1532702, 13075300.2455853] }, {container: 'VA', stateName: 'Virginia', data: [129999199.568814, 24437492.6854449, 95072945.9755582, 99080026.5415588] }, {container: 'WA', stateName: 'Washington', data: [121426234.04932, 16047552.9447412, 75269246.9428802, 102296129.104132] }, {container: 'WV', stateName: 'West Virginia', data: [38190111.59072, 8961685.00966148, 26703199.5658044, 31118732.19263] }, {container: 'WI', stateName: 'Wisconsin', data: [80656483.0654439, 13449283.6554001, 55920665.6485375, 66857785.9207889] }, {container: 'WY', stateName: 'Wyoming', data: [15266614.6060915, 1919282.60175382, 14467366.5661192, 14405031.8408669] }, ]; const categories = [ { name: "Basic Grants", color: "#13487A" }, { name: "Concentration Grants", color: "#9B945F " }, { name: "Targeted Grants", color: "#7060A8" }, { name: "EFIG", color: "#6CC8BD" } ]; data.forEach(e => { const seriesData = categories.map((category, index) => ({ name: category.name, data: [{ y: e.data[index], stateName: e.stateName }], color: category.color })); Highcharts.chart(e.container, { title: { text: null}, accessibility: { description: 'Horizontal bar graph detailing the percentage of each state\'s Title I-A grant that was provided by each of the four Title I-A formulas in FY2025. The figure also provides each state\'s total FY2025 Title I-A grant amount and the amount of funding each state received under each of the four Title I-A formulas', }, chart: { type: "bar", margin:0, animation:'false'}, credits: { enabled: false }, legend:{enabled:false}, tooltip: { useHTML: true, hideDelay: 0, outside: true, shared:true, formatter: function() { let tooltipHtml = ``; this.points.forEach(point => { tooltipHtml += ` `; }); tooltipHtml += '

${this.points[0].point.stateName}	($thousands)
${point.series.name}: ${(point.percentage).toFixed(2)}%	($${Highcharts.numberFormat(point.y / 1000, 0, '.', ',')})

'; return tooltipHtml; }, positioner: function(labelWidth, labelHeight, point) { // Calculate the position to place the tooltip below the data point return { //x: point.plotX + labelWidth / 2, // Center the tooltip horizontally x:10, //x: point.plotX / 2, y: point.plotY + 15 // Move it down by 10 pixels }; } }, plotOptions: { series: { stacking: 'percent', pointPadding: 0, groupPadding: 0.1, dataLabels: { enabled: false }, animation: false, borderRadius:0, opacity: 0.85, // Set initial opacity to a lighter value states: { hover: { enabled: true, // Enable hover state brightness: 0, // Prevent brightness change opacity:1 }, }, events: { mouseOver: function () { const series = this.chart.series; series.forEach(function (s) { s.data.forEach(function (point) { if (point.graphic) { point.graphic.element.style.opacity = 1; // Set opacity to 1 } }); }); }, mouseOut: function () { // Reset opacity for all points in this series const series = this.chart.series; series.forEach(function (s) { s.data.forEach(function (point) { if (point.graphic) { point.graphic.element.style.opacity = 0.85; // Reset opacity } }); }); } } } }, yAxis: { visible: false, title: { text: null }, gridLineWidth: 0,reversed: true }, xAxis: { visible: false, title: { text: null }, lineWidth: 0, }, series: seriesData }); }); </script>

Source: Figure prepared by CRS based on unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Budget Service. FY2025 Title I-A grant amounts were calculated by ED using the most current data available. CRS calculated the percentage shares of state grant FY2025 allocation amounts from each formula.

Notes: EFIG = Education Finance Incentive Grants. The percentages represented by the bars for each state show the share of a state's total Title I-A funding being provided under each of the four Title I-A formulas. Thus, across states, the same percentage of funds being provided by a particular Title I-A formula may not correspond to an identical dollar amount of funds being provided by that formula to the relevant states. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers. Amounts shown in the figure reflect only Title I-A funds provided to states. These amounts are determined after funds have been reserved from the total Title I-A appropriation ($18.4 billion) for the Census Bureau, Bureau of Indian Education, and outlying areas. For the purposes of Title I-A, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are considered states. See Table A-1 for further details on amounts and shares of state grants provided under each formula.

Appendix. Comparison of FY2025 Title I-A State Grants by Amount and Share of State Grant Provided Under Each Formula

Isobel Sorenson, former CRS Research Assistant, also contributed to this report.

Footnotes

1.	Title I-A is officially titled "Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies" in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), but it is commonly referred to as Title I-A.
2.	For the purposes of Title I-A, the term states includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
3.	This report continues a series of annual reports on Title I-A state grants. Similar analyses are available for FY2015-FY2024: CRS Report R48893, FY2024 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); CRS Report R48607, FY2023 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); CRS Report R47598, FY2022 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); CRS Report R47111, FY2021 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); CRS Report R47078, FY2020 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); CRS Report R46269, FY2019 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); CRS Report R45662, FY2018 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); CRS Report R44873, FY2017 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); CRS Report R44486, FY2016 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); and CRS Report R44097, FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
4.	As the analysis presented in this report is based on unpublished data provided to CRS by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on November 24, 2025, CRS is unable to present the specific underlying data used to determine Title I-A grants for a given state.
5.	Division D, Title III, of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-47).
6.	Individual grant formula appropriations may not add to $18.4 billion because of rounding.
7.	From the appropriation for Basic Grants, $5 million was reserved for the U.S. Census Bureau to provide the data needed to determine Title I-A grant amounts. The maximum amount that may be reserved for this purpose is specified annually in the ED Appropriations Act. From the remaining funds, a statutorily determined 1.1% was reserved from the appropriations for each of the four formulas for the Bureau of Indian Education and the outlying areas. For the purposes of Title I-A, outlying areas are American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
8.	The two factors are the equity and effort factors. For more information about these factors, see CRS Report R48165, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas.
9.	The Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program produces single-year estimates of income and poverty for all U.S. states and counties as well as estimates of school-age children in poverty for over 13,000 local educational agencies (LEAs). SAIPE estimates do not include all LEAs in the United States. For example, SAIPE estimates do not include charter schools that are their own LEAs. State educational agencies (SEAs) make adjustments to the grants calculated by ED to account for LEAs not included in the SAIPE estimates.
10.	For a description of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, see CRS In Focus IF10036, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant.
11.	State average per-pupil expenditures (APPE) are based on (1) the aggregate current expenditures of all LEAs in the state plus any direct expenditures by the state for the operation of those LEAs divided by (2) the aggregate number of children in average daily attendance to whom those LEAs provided free public education. For the purposes of determining state APPE, current expenditures include expenditures to provide a free public education, including expenditures for administration, instruction, attendance and health services, pupil transportation services, plant operations and maintenance, fixed charges, and net expenditures to cover deficits for food services and student body activities. Current expenditures do not include expenditures from community services, capital outlay, debt service, or any expenditures made from funds received under ESEA, Title I (§8101). In addition, according to a report on the Title I-A formulas published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) under ED, to refine the state APPE calculation "to reflect only the state and local education costs, several federal revenue items from the current expenditure numerator are removed before calculating state APPE." In addition to removing federal revenues from Title I, other federal revenue items that are large enough to have a "substantive effect on current expenditures" are removed. For example, revenue from the National School Lunch Program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is removed from the numerator. For more information, see ED, NCES, Study of the Title I, Part A Grant Program Mathematical Formulas, May 2019, p. 17, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019016.pdf (hereinafter ED, NCES, Study of the Title I-A Formulas).
12.	The state APPE is multiplied by 40% because "Title I is intended to be a supplemental program; thus, districts are authorized to receive 40 additional cents for each [state per pupil expenditure] dollar to spend on education services provided to disadvantaged students" (ED, NCES, Study of the Title I-A Formulas, p. 1).
13.	In practice, the bounds on the expenditure factor for the Basic Grant, Concentration Grant, and Targeted Grant formulas are expressed as 80% and 120%. In law, the bounds are expressed as 32% and 48% of 100% of the national APPE (ESEA, §1124(a)(1)(B)). Similarly, in practice, the bounds on the expenditure factor for the Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG) formula are expressed as 85% and 115%. In law, the bounds are expressed as 34% and 46% of 100% of the national APPE (ESEA, §1125A(b)(1)(A)(i)).
14.	For example, during the 2021-2022 school year, there were 4,149 independent charter districts in the United States (ED, NCES, "Table 214.30. Number of public elementary and secondary education agencies, by type of agency and state or jurisdiction: School years 2020-21 and 2021-22," Digest of Education Statistics, 2022, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_214.30.asp). Independent charter districts are not included in the SAIPE dataset used by ED to calculate Title I-A grants, so ED is unable to calculate grant amounts for these LEAs.
15.	For more information about the characteristics of the Title I-A formulas and how they affect grant amounts, see CRS Report R45141, Analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I-A Allocation Formulas: Factors, Design Elements, and Allocation Patterns.
16.	Under the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas, weights are applied to formula child counts on the basis of (1) each LEA's formula child rate (commonly referred to as percentage weighting) and (2) each LEA's number of formula children (commonly referred to as number weighting). Both percentage weighting and number weighting produce a weighted formula child count. The higher of the two weighted formula child counts for a given LEA is used in the formula for determining grants. For more information about the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R48165, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas.
17.	This is due to the equity factor used in the EFIG formula. For more information about this factor, see CRS Report R48165, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas.
18.	Each of the minimum grant provisions included in the four Title I-A formulas have multiple minimum grant calculation formulas. By law, the calculation option that produces the lowest grant is chosen for each state, resulting in states benefiting from the minimum state grant provisions receiving different shares of the same Title I-A formula appropriation.