The present paper employs a behavioral simulation model and data on 4,693 school districts to provide new information about the expenditure effects of the current Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I program and three major alternatives. The model examines the likely effect of the four options, differing in the choice of targets (low-income versus low-achievement pupils) as well as in the method of allocation (block versus matching grant). The general conclusions are that each program is capable of raising the average level of spending on pupils in the target groups to more than the average level spent on nontarget groups; that there is little difference in the amount of aid or the level of expenditure under the different options; that the grants based on a low-income target appear to be more effective than grants based on a low-achievement target in directing aid to districts with a very large number of low achievers; and that matching grants are more effective per dollar of federal aid in increasing total educational spending. These findings bring into sharp focus the issue of whether compensatory education grants are to be thought of as aid to pupils or to communities. (Author/IRT)