Title I vs. Title II: which one pays for PD?
Most leaders asking this question aren't writing a policy paper. They have a professional-development purchase in front of them and two federal funding streams on the budget sheet, and they want to know which line it goes on — or whether it can go on either. The short answer is that both can fund PD, they qualify it differently, and the deciding factor is usually your school's Title I status rather than the purchase itself.
The one-sentence difference
Title I, Part A sends money to schools serving concentrations of children from low-income families, to raise the achievement of students who are behind. Title II, Part A sends money to districts to improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers and school leaders. Title I is about students; Title II is about educators. PD can be bought with either — but under Title I it has to be part of how the school raises student achievement, and under Title II it's the core purpose.
Side by side
| Title I, Part A | Title II, Part A | |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Help students in high-poverty schools meet state standards | Improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers and school leaders |
| Who receives it | Districts, then schools by poverty concentration | Districts, by formula |
| Does every school get it? | No — depends on poverty concentration | Districts get it; whether your school's PD gets a slice is a district decision |
| Is PD an allowable use? | Yes, as part of the school's program — clearest in a schoolwide program | Yes, it's the core use |
| The framing that gets approval | "This raises achievement for the students we're behind on" | "This improves the effectiveness of our teachers" |
| Supplement-not-supplant test | A methodology test, not a cost-by-cost one | The familiar cost-by-cost presumption |
Title I: how PD fits
Title I money reaches schools by poverty concentration, and how a school may spend it depends on which of two program types it runs.
Schoolwide programs. A school where children from low-income families are at least 40 percent of enrollment may operate a schoolwide program, serving all children in the school rather than a list of identified students. ESSA kept that 40 percent threshold and added authority for a state to waive it where a schoolwide program would best serve the school's students. Two things follow that matter for a PD purchase: high-quality, ongoing professional development is a named component of a schoolwide program, and schoolwide programs may consolidate federal, state, and local funds without tracking spending to specific identified students. If your school runs a schoolwide program, this is the cleanest Title I route to funding PD.
Targeted assistance programs. A school below the threshold — or one that chooses not to run schoolwide — uses Title I funds on allowable activities only for the students who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet state standards. PD is still fundable, but the connection has to hold: professional development for the staff serving those students, in service of those students' achievement. A faculty-wide PD program is a harder fit here, and this is where your Title coordinator will ask the most questions.
Title II: the shorter path for PD
Title II, Part A exists to improve educator effectiveness, so a PD purchase doesn't need a bridge argument — evidence-based professional development and instructional coaching are named uses. The details, including the allowable-use table, the July 1 availability window, and the line-item language boards approve, are on their own page: Title II, Part A: what it can pay for.
One thing both streams share: the professional development itself has to meet ESSA's definition — sustained, intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, and classroom-focused. A one-day workshop with no follow-up has a funding problem under either title.
The supplement-not-supplant difference
Both titles carry a supplement-not-supplant rule, and they are not the same rule — this surprises people.
Under Title II, the familiar version applies: the funds must add to what the district would have funded anyway. If you paid for the same activity with state or local money last year, moving it to Title II this year looks like supplanting.
Under Title I, ESSA changed the test. The Department's guidance is explicit that no district is required to identify that an individual cost or service is supplemental — the compliance question is about the district's methodology for allocating state and local funds to schools, not a line-by-line audit of each purchase. In practice that makes Title I less fussy about a specific PD invoice than many leaders expect, and more concerned with how the district distributes its own money.
Which one should this purchase go on?
A rough decision order, from the easiest case to the hardest:
- Is it a PD purchase for teachers generally? Start with Title II, Part A. It's the shortest argument.
- Is your school a Title I schoolwide program? Title I is available too, and consolidation makes it flexible. Many schools split: Title II for the core program, Title I for the portion serving the students the school is furthest behind on.
- Is your school targeted-assistance Title I? Title I can work, but the PD has to connect to the identified students and the staff who serve them. Have that argument written down before you ask.
- Neither fits? Title IV, Part A is the broader third stream, and local budget is always available.
And a practical note: whichever line it goes on, the strongest version of the request is the same. Name the student outcome, name the teaching practice that moves it, and show what evidence arrives at Day 30 — how you'll measure whether it worked.
What your Title coordinator will ask
- Which program does the school run — schoolwide or targeted assistance?
- What student need does this PD address, and where is that need documented?
- Does the professional development meet the ESSA definition — sustained, job-embedded, and the rest?
- Were we paying for this locally last year?
- What evidence will exist that it happened and that it worked?
Common questions
Can Title I funds pay for professional development?
Yes. In a schoolwide program, high-quality ongoing professional development is a named component and funds may be consolidated across federal, state, and local sources. In a targeted assistance program, PD is allowable but must connect to the students identified as failing or most at risk of failing to meet state standards, and the staff who serve them. Allowability decisions are local.
What is the difference between Title I and Title II funding?
Title I, Part A goes to schools serving concentrations of children from low-income families, to raise student achievement. Title II, Part A goes to districts to improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers and school leaders. Professional development is an allowable use under both, but under Title II it is the core purpose, while under Title I it has to be part of how the school raises student achievement.
Can a school use both Title I and Title II for the same PD program?
Schools commonly fund different portions of a program from different streams — for example Title II for the core professional development and Title I for the part serving the students the school is furthest behind on. What you cannot do is charge the same cost to two federal sources. Your district's Title coordinator or federal programs office decides how the split is documented.
Does the supplement-not-supplant rule work the same way for Title I and Title II?
No. Under Title II the familiar test applies: the funds must add to what the district would otherwise have funded. Under Title I, ESSA changed the test — Department guidance says a district is not required to demonstrate that an individual cost or service is supplemental; the question is about the district's methodology for allocating state and local funds to schools.
Where PD That Works fits
PD That Works is built to the ESSA definition on purpose: workshops that anchor a sustained daily coaching cycle, job-embedded (five minutes a day, inside the teaching week), data-driven (Day 30/60/90 reports), and classroom-focused. Title II, Part A eligible at every tier — and the Starter tier is priced below most board-approval thresholds.
Tell us about your school, we prepare the pilot, you review and choose the launch date. About two minutes. No payment. Nothing goes to teachers until you approve.