NCLB's sanction of reducing or not eliminating government funding for schools that fail to meet or achieve a certain level of student performance represents another process unnecessary to reduce the performance gap. The Federal Title 1 program facilitates financial assistance and sponsorship for schools in non-English speaking societies and areas considered low-income and technically disadvantaged in terms of educational resources. Limiting a school's financial resources by stopping funding after “unsatisfactory” performance results only compounds the challenge of reducing the performance gap among students from different socio-economic backgrounds. Academicians consider that the ideal solution is to increase this funding instead of reducing it. Most potential NCLB defaulters are from low-income, non-English-speaking, and technically disadvantaged societies in the United States, due to resource scarcity (Rueter pars 1-2; TAAD 1-8). The NCLB sanction of reducing or stopping funding for schools whose student performance does not meet established goals thus violates the logical solution to remedy the performance imbalance, and therefore does not contribute to attempts to reduce the achievement gap. performance. NCLB's scoring system for determining eligibility for national funding creates an inappropriate framework for closing the performance gap. The system places a strong emphasis on assessment, based on a preference for mathematics, science and English, and the need to achieve high grades to obtain government funding. This promotes an increased school focus on the three subjects at the expense of others, and promotes a negative atmosphere for student learning. Students demonstrate increased anxiety, thus reducing the program to the middle of the sheet......e, Rod and Gibbons, John. “No Child Left Behind: A Guide for Parents.” » Ministry of Education, 2003. Web. November 26, 2011. Parrish, Thomas et al. “Effects of Proposition 227 Implementation on Learners in Education. K-12: Year 2 Report American Institutes for Research and WestEd. Palo Alto. 2002. Internet. November 28, 2011. Rueter, Ted. “Disastrous: The Child Left Behind Act should not be repealed,” says Professor Ted Rueter. » DePauw University. September 2007. Web. November 30, 2011. Sacramento Unified 1st Grade Teacher. Personal interview. December 1, 2011. “Ten Moral Concerns About Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.” (TMCI): National Council of Churches. Internet. November 23, 2011. “Title 1 – Improving the academic success of disadvantaged people (TAAD). » US Department of Education, 2006. Web. November 30, 2011. Teacher in a youth correctional facility. Personal interview. December 1. 2011.