This article is discussing federal standards of which it claims determines 60% of a school's federal funding which is less than 5% of a school's total funding.

This article is discussing federal standards of which it claims determines 60% of a school's federal funding which is less than 5% of a school's total funding. That may be true (although at least here in NJ it varies widely from school to school). But that doesn't drive the conclusion that the federal influence on the disposition of money is proportionate. It's conceivable, and I think even probable, that state and local governments are willing to throw considerable portions of their own money in to chase those federal dollars. There's no reason to think that they won't use inefficiently a big chunk of their budget just to extend it by that additional federal chunk. I base that on (1) the willingness of states to follow all sorts of other federal guidelines in a quest for funding (speed limits, drinking age, etc.) without questioning their importance for each individual state; and (2) my opinion that despite the lip service of the NEA the rest of "the education lobby", their primary motivation is to build and solidify their power base and individual member benefits, rather than to serve students. (I agree with your criticism of the logic comparing achievement by low achievers vs. high achievers.)