Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is designed to provide special services to educationally disadvantaged children attending schools located within attendance areas with high concentrations of low income children. If attendance areas are changed, the concentrations of low income children within attendance areas also changes. In order to continue services to children who were receiving aid but who no longer attend schools within eligible attendance areas, a "follow-the-child" amendment was proposed as part of the 1976 Education Amendments. This was not accepted and the debate on this amendment continues. For example, one argument in favor of the issue is that if the funds do not "follow-the-child", parents would resist the prospect of their children losing services. This action may serve as a deterrent to desegregation. Opponents of the amendment, however, argue that the children affected by the redrawing of attendance areas are at no more of a disadvantage than the eligible children who have never received services. In addition, they point to administrative difficulties in implementing such a proposal. NIE has investigated the "follow-the-child" problem in three ways: (1) ways in which Title I students in school districts undergoing attendance area changes might lose services, (2) sources of flexibility in Title I regulations that would permit districts to continue serving children after school attendance areas are changed, and (3) an examination of the experiences of a large number of desegregated districts to determine whether the problems that exist in theory are actually serious in practice. The findings with respect to these three areas of inquiry are presented. (Author/AM)