Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a federal program to provide additional assistance to academically struggling students in high-poverty areas, has long contained a provision called the "supplement-not-supplant" requirement. This provision was designed to ensure Title I funds were spent on extra educational services for at-risk students, but in practice, the rule as it is currently enforced can prevent school districts and schools from spending federal money on effective educational strategies. Complying with the supplement-not-supplant rule also carries an enormous administrative burden. This paper briefly describes the origins of Title I's supplement-not-supplant requirement and provides examples of how the rule affects state and local implementation of Title I programs. This paper also offers three options for reforming the rule: (1) Replace the current "cost-by-cost test" with a test that focuses on the amount of state and local funding Title I schools receive to ensure such funds are allocated neutrally without regard to the Title I funds available to the school; (2) Allow the U.S. Department of Education, and perhaps state educational agencies, to waive the supplement-not-supplant requirement as needed to promote effective and efficient educational strategies for at-risk students; and (3) Eliminate the supplement-not-supplant test altogether. The purpose of this paper is to explore the ways in which the supplement-not-supplant requirement works against the goals of Title I and to offer suggestions for alternatives that better promote the responsible use of Title I funds. (Contains 29 endnotes.)