Race to the Top
Reform Efforts Are Under Way and Information Sharing Could Be Improved
Gao ID: GAO-11-658 June 30, 2011
In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress required the U.S. Department of Education (Education) to make education reform grants to states. Education subsequently established the Race to the Top (RTT) grant fund and awarded almost $4 billion to 12 states related to developing effective teachers and leaders, improving the lowest-achieving schools, expanding student data systems, and enhancing standards and assessments. This report, prepared in response to a mandate in the act, addresses (1) actions states took to be competitive for RTT grants; (2) how grantees plan to use their grants and whether selected nongrantees have chosen to move forward with their reform plans; (3) what challenges, if any, have affected early implementation of states' reform efforts; and (4) Education's efforts to support and oversee states' use of RTT funds. GAO analyzed RTT applications for 20 states, interviewed state officials, visited 4 grantee states, analyzed states' planned uses of grant funds, and interviewed Education officials.
State officials GAO interviewed said their states took a variety of actions to be competitive for RTT grants. Of the 20 states GAO interviewed, officials in 6 said their states undertook reforms, such as amending laws related to teacher evaluations, to be competitive for RTT. However, officials from 14 states said their reforms resulted from prior or ongoing efforts and were not made to be more competitive for RTT. While officials in all 20 states told us that applying for RTT took a significant amount of time and effort, several of them also said their state benefited from the planning that the application process required. Grantees plan to use RTT grant funds to implement reforms in four areas. The largest percentage of state-level RTT funds will be used to increase the effectiveness of teachers and leaders. GAO interviewed officials in 8 nongrantee states who said they expect to continue implementing parts of their RTT plans, though at a slower pace than if they had received a grant. Most grantee states have faced a variety of challenges, such as difficulty hiring qualified personnel, that have delayed implementation. As a result, as of June 2011, about 12 percent of first-year grant funds were spent, and some projects were delayed several months. Some state officials said they expect to spend more funds soon and may seek Education's approval to reallocate some first-year grant funds into later years. Education has provided extensive support to grantee states and has begun monitoring. Education assigned a program officer to each state to assist with implementation and has developed ways for grantees to share information, such as hosting meetings on specific initiatives. Some officials from nongrantee states said they would find this information useful, but they were generally unaware of these resources or were unable to access them. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education (1) facilitate information sharing among grantees on additional promising practices and (2) provide nongrantee states with related information. Education agreed with the first recommendation and partially agreed with the second; GAO modified that recommendation to clarify how Education can provide that information to nongrantee states.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
George A. Scott
Team:
Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Phone:
(202) 512-5932
GAO-11-658, Race to the Top: Reform Efforts Are Under Way and Information Sharing Could Be Improved
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-658
entitled 'Race To The Top: Reform Efforts Are Under Way and
Information Sharing Could Be Improved' which was released on June 30,
2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
June 2011:
Race To The Top:
Reform Efforts Are Under Way and Information Sharing Could Be Improved:
GAO-11-658:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-658, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress
required the U.S. Department of Education (Education) to make
education reform grants to states. Education subsequently established
the Race to the Top (RTT) grant fund and awarded almost $4 billion to
12 states related to developing effective teachers and leaders,
improving the lowest-achieving schools, expanding student data
systems, and enhancing standards and assessments.
This report, prepared in response to a mandate in the act, addresses
(1) actions states took to be competitive for RTT grants; (2) how
grantees plan to use their grants and whether selected nongrantees
have chosen to move forward with their reform plans; (3) what
challenges, if any, have affected early implementation of states‘
reform efforts; and (4) Education‘s efforts to support and oversee
states‘ use of RTT funds.
GAO analyzed RTT applications for 20 states, interviewed state
officials, visited 4 grantee states, analyzed states‘ planned uses of
grant funds, and interviewed Education officials.
What GAO Found:
State officials GAO interviewed said their states took a variety of
actions to be competitive for RTT grants. Of the 20 states GAO
interviewed, officials in 6 said their states undertook reforms, such
as amending laws related to teacher evaluations, to be competitive for
RTT. However, officials from 14 states said their reforms resulted
from prior or ongoing efforts and were not made to be more competitive
for RTT. While officials in all 20 states told us that applying for
RTT took a significant amount of time and effort, several of them also
said their state benefited from the planning that the application
process required.
Grantees plan to use RTT grant funds to implement reforms in four
areas. (See figure.) The largest percentage of state-level RTT funds
will be used to increase the effectiveness of teachers and leaders.
GAO interviewed officials in 8 nongrantee states who said they expect
to continue implementing parts of their RTT plans, though at a slower
pace than if they had received a grant.
Figure: Distribution of States‘ RTT Grant Budgets, by Reform Area:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Developing effective teachers and leaders ($654.1 million): 33%;
Improving the lowest-achieving schools ($478.5 million): 24%;
Expanding student data systems ($353.4 million): 18%;
Enhancing standards and assessments ($312.5 million): 16%;
Other ($193.9 million): 10%.
Source: GAO analysis of states‘ approved RTT budgets.
[End of figure]
Most grantee states have faced a variety of challenges, such as
difficulty hiring qualified personnel, that have delayed
implementation. As a result, as of June 2011, about 12 percent of
first-year grant funds were spent, and some projects were delayed
several months. Some state officials said they expect to spend more
funds soon and may seek Education‘s approval to reallocate some first-
year grant funds into later years.
Education has provided extensive support to grantee states and has
begun monitoring. Education assigned a program officer to each state
to assist with implementation and has developed ways for grantees to
share information, such as hosting meetings on specific initiatives.
Some officials from nongrantee states said they would find this
information useful, but they were generally unaware of these resources
or were unable to access them.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education (1) facilitate
information sharing among grantees on additional promising practices
and (2) provide nongrantee states with related information. Education
agreed with the first recommendation and partially agreed with the
second; GAO modified that recommendation to clarify how Education can
provide that information to nongrantee states.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-658] or key
components. For more information, contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-
7215 or scottg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
States Reported Taking a Variety of Actions and Investing Considerable
Resources to Be Competitive for Race to the Top Grants:
Grantees Plan to Implement a Variety of Reforms and Selected
Nongrantees Will Continue Some Reforms but at a Slower Pace:
States Reported Facing a Variety of Challenges That Have Led to Some
Implementation Delays:
Education Provided Extensive Support and Is Monitoring States'
Activities, but Its Efforts to Facilitate Information Sharing Are
Somewhat Limited:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation Grant Funds:
Appendix III: Criteria Used to Guide the Selection of States to
Receive RTT Grant Awards:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Race to the Top Grant Awards, by Phase and Amount Awarded:
Table 2: Reported Policy Changes States Took to Be More Competitive
for Race to the Top:
Table 3: RTT Grant Funds Drawn Down as of June 3, 2011:
Table 4: States with RTT Applications That We Reviewed:
Table 5: Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation Grant Funds:
Table 6: Criteria for Race to the Top Grant Awards:
Figures:
Figure 1: Race to the Top Grant Timeline--Education's Actions to
Facilitate States' Efforts to Apply for Grants and Begin
Implementation:
Figure 2: Distribution of RTT Grant Budgets:
Abbreviations:
Education: U.S. Department of Education:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
IES: Institute of Education Sciences:
K-12: elementary and secondary:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
RTT: Race to the Top:
SFSF: State Fiscal Stabilization Fund:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 30,2011:
Report to Congressional Committees:
The U.S. Department of Education (Education) established the $4
billion Race to the Top (RTT) grant fund to encourage states to reform
their elementary and secondary (K-12) education systems and to reward
states that have improved student outcomes, such as high school
graduation rates. RTT, referred to in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) as State Incentive Grants,
[Footnote 1] is the largest competitive grant fund ever administered
by Education. RTT is also notable because it provides incentives for
reform across multiple areas of K-12 education. Areas of reform
include adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to
succeed in college and the workplace and improving the lowest-
achieving schools. Reforms similar to those in RTT are included in
Education's proposal for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA); the proposal also includes other
competitive grants as a way to drive innovation in K-12 education. In
addition to Recovery Act funding already awarded, in fiscal year 2011,
Education can award up to $700 million in RTT grants to states with an
emphasis on early childhood learning. The administration has proposed
$900 million for fiscal year 2012 for RTT grants to be made directly
to school districts.
The Recovery Act requires GAO to evaluate the RTT grant fund.[Footnote
2] This report, prepared in response to the requirement, examines (1)
actions states took to be competitive for RTT grants; (2) how grantees
plan to use their grants and whether selected nongrantees have chosen
to move forward with their reform plans; (3) what challenges, if any,
have affected early implementation of states' reform efforts; and (4)
Education's efforts to support and oversee states' use of RTT funds.
Because our review was conducted primarily during the first year of
the 4-year grant period, we focused on states' experiences during the
application process, their initial efforts to implement reform
activities, and their plans for the next several years. We analyzed
RTT applications for 20 of the 47 states that applied for RTT grants
in the first, second, or both phases of the RTT grant competition: the
12 states (including the District of Columbia)[Footnote 3] that
received the grants and 8 selected states that did not receive grants.
We interviewed officials in these 20 states about their efforts to
apply for the RTT grant. In addition, we selected 4 grantee states--
Delaware, New York, Ohio, and Tennessee--for in-depth data collection;
we conducted site visits to those states and a total of 12 of their
school districts.[Footnote 4] During these visits, we interviewed
officials in states and districts about their planned uses for RTT
grant funds, their perspectives on the benefits of their planned uses,
challenges they have experienced in beginning to implement grant
activities, and support provided by Education. We also reviewed
relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance and interviewed
Education officials. See appendix I for a more detailed description of
our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2010 to June 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Education Reform Areas and Application Criteria:
As part of the Recovery Act's State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF),
Congress required Education to make grants to states that reform their
education systems. Education subsequently created the RTT grant fund
[Footnote 5] and gave states the opportunity to compete for grants
based on reforms specified in the act:
1. recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers
and principals, especially where they are needed most;
2. turning around states' lowest-achieving schools, which can include
interventions such as replacing school staff, converting the school
into a charter school, or closing the school;
3. building data systems that measure student growth and success and
inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
and:
4. adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed
in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy.
Based mostly on these reform areas, Education identified 19 primary
criteria--such as adopting common content standards or using
performance data to improve teacher effectiveness--to guide the
selection of states to receive the grants. Education divided the
criteria into two groups: (1) "reform conditions criteria," referring
to the state's history of and current status in implementing reforms
and (2) "reform plan criteria," referring to the state's plans to
implement new reforms. States were required to provide a narrative
response for each criterion and provide performance measures and other
information for selected criteria. The applications also had to
include budgets and timelines for implementing certain proposed reform
efforts. In short, states were to provide information not only on the
extent of their experiences implementing reforms in these areas, but
also on their plans for moving forward.
In addition, states could demonstrate that a sufficient number of
their school districts were committed to participating in their RTT
reform plans by having a memorandum of understanding signed by
district superintendents, school board presidents, and local union
representatives.[Footnote 6] The Recovery Act requires that districts
in each grantee state must receive at least 50 percent of the state's
total grant,[Footnote 7] and, according to Education, only
participating districts receive these funds. States could also
describe how they would work with participating districts to use RTT
funds to improve student outcomes, such as increasing the rates at
which students who graduate from high school are prepared for college
and careers. See appendix III for more information on the criteria
used to help select states for grant awards.[Footnote 8]
RTT Grant Application Process and Awards:
Education conducted the RTT grant competition in two phases. Education
issued proposed requirements for the RTT grant fund in July 2009, and
in November 2009, the department issued final requirements and a
notice inviting state governors to apply for Phase 1 of the grant.
[Footnote 9] For a state to have been eligible to receive an RTT
grant, Education must have previously approved the state's
applications in both rounds of SFSF grant awards.[Footnote 10] In
addition, at the time they submitted their RTT applications, states
could not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers to linking
data on student achievement or growth to teachers and principals for
evaluation purposes. States had the option to apply in either phase of
the competition but were only able to reapply in Phase 2 if they did
not receive a grant in Phase 1.
Forty-one states applied for RTT funds in Phase 1 of the competition,
and all applications were reviewed and scored by external reviewers
using Education's grant award criteria.[Footnote 11] Sixteen states
passed the initial review and were deemed "finalists" for the grants.
In March 2010, Education announced that Delaware and Tennessee would
receive grants of approximately $100 million and $500 million,
respectively. Education posted all Phase 1 applications and reviewers'
scores and comments on its Web site. In April 2010, Education issued a
notice inviting applications for Phase 2 of the RTT grant competition,
and in August, Education announced that 10 states received Phase 2 RTT
grants ranging from $75 million to $700 million. (Education was
required to award all RTT grant funds by Sept. 30, 2010.) The size of
each state's award was based in part on the size of the state, among
other factors. Table 1 lists RTT grantees and their award amounts. As
in Phase 1, all applications and reviewers' scores and comments were
posted on Education's Web site.
Table 1: Race to the Top Grant Awards, by Phase and Amount Awarded:
Phase 1:
State: Tennessee;
Total amount awarded: $501 million;
State grant: $250 million;
School district subgrants: $250 million.
State: Delaware;
Total amount awarded: $119 million;
State grant: $60 million;
School district subgrants: $60 million.
Phase 2:
State: Florida;
Total amount awarded: $700 million;
State grant: $350 million;
School district subgrants: $350 million.
State: New York;
Total amount awarded: $697 million;
State grant: $348 million;
School district subgrants: $348 million.
State: Georgia;
Total amount awarded: $400 million;
State grant: $200 million;
School district subgrants: $200 million.
State: Ohio;
Total amount awarded: $400 million;
State grant: $194 million;
School district subgrants: $206 million.
State: North Carolina;
Total amount awarded: $399 million;
State grant: $199 million;
School district subgrants: $200 million.
State: Maryland;
Total amount awarded: $250 million;
State grant: $125 million;
School district subgrants: $125 million.
State: Massachusetts;
Total amount awarded: $250 million;
State grant: $125 million;
School district subgrants: $125 million.
State: District of Columbia[A];
Total amount awarded: $75 million;
State grant: $33 million;
School district subgrants: $42 million.
State: Hawaii[B];
Total amount awarded: $75 million;
State grant: $75 million;
School district subgrants: 0.
State: Rhode Island;
Total amount awarded: $75 million;
State grant: $38 million;
School district subgrants: $38 million.
State: Total;
Total amount awarded: $3.941 billion;
State grant: $1.997 billion;
School district subgrants: $1.944 billion.
Source: Education.
Notes: Because of rounding, state and school district funds do not sum
to the total amount awarded in some states.
[A] In addition to the District of Columbia public school system, the
District of Columbia has 31 charter schools that operate as
independent school districts participating in its reform plan. The
Office of the State Superintendent of Education, created in 2007 as
the state education agency for the District of Columbia, administers
RTT throughout the District. This office subgrants RTT funds to the
District of Columbia public school system and to the participating
charter schools.
[B] Because the Hawaii Department of Education serves as both the
state educational agency and the state's only local educational
agency, the approved grant budget for Hawaii does not have funds for
participating school districts.
[End of table]
Following Education's announcement of grant recipients, states were
given access to 12.5 percent of their award. This amount is
approximately equal to the state portion of the first year grant
amount for state-level activities only. To receive the rest of their
grant funds, states had to submit, and the department had to approve,
documents known as scopes of work, which were more streamlined
implementation plans that updated and aligned timelines and budgets in
the states' approved applications. Education also required states to
submit scopes of work from each of their participating school
districts 90 days after the grants were awarded. Education reviewed
and approved the state scopes of work and also reviewed the extent to
which district scopes of work aligned with their respective state's
plans. Education granted states access to grant funds on a rolling
basis as they approved their key documents. (See figure 1 for a
timeline of key RTT grant activities to date.)
Figure 1: Race to the Top Grant Timeline--Education's Actions to
Facilitate States' Efforts to Apply for Grants and Begin
Implementation:
[Refer to PDF for image: timeline]
July 2009: Issued proposed requirements for Race to the Top and
provided a comment period.
Phase One Application:
November 2009: Issued final requirements and notice inviting
applications.
January 2010: Received applications from 41 states.
March 2010: Named 16 state finalists and announced that Delaware and
Tennessee would receive grants.
Phase One Implementation:
April 2010: Approved Tennessee state scope of work.
June 2010: Awarded grant to Delaware, finalized state‘s budget, and
gave the state access to 12.5 percent of its grant award; received
Delaware and Tennessee school district scopes of work.
July 2010: Approved Delaware state scope of work and gave the state
access to all grant funds; awarded grant to Tennessee, finalized
state's budget, and gave state access to all grant funds.
Phase Two Application:
September: Awarded grants to Phase Two states, finalized state
budgets, and gave states access to 12.5 percent of grant funds.
April 2010: Issued notice inviting applications.
June 2010: Received applications from 36 states.
July 2010: Named 19 state finalists.
August 2010: Announced that the District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, and Rhode Island would receive grants.
Phase Two Implementation:
September 2010: Awarded grants to Phase Two states, finalized state
budgets, and gave states access to 12.5 percent of grant funds.
November 2010: Received school district and state scopes of work.
January-April 2011: For 9 of 12 grantee states: reviewed school
district scopes of work, approved state scopes of work, and gave
states access to all grant funds.
April 2011: Issued plan to monitor state use of grant funds; received
state plans to monitor school district uses of grant funds.
Source: GAO analysis of Education RTT documents.
[End of figure]
Additional Grant Requirements, Monitoring, and Evaluation:
Grantee states must meet additional requirements throughout the 4-year
RTT grant period. Grantees must obligate all funds by the end of their
4-year grant period and must liquidate all obligations no later than
90 days after their grant term ends. Education, however, may grant
extensions for states beyond the 90 days on a case-by-case basis. Any
funds not obligated and liquidated by September 30, 2015, will revert
to the U.S. Treasury, according to Education officials. Also,
Education required RTT grantee states, school districts, and schools
to identify and share promising practices--with the federal government
and the public--that result from implementing RTT projects. This
requirement includes making RTT data available to stakeholders and
researchers and publicizing the results of any voluntary evaluations
they conduct of their funded activities.
Education's policy is to monitor grantee states to ensure they meet
their goals, timelines, budgets and annual targets, and fulfill other
applicable requirements. According to Education officials, the
department's monitoring plan for states emphasizes program outcomes
and quality of implementation, while also ensuring compliance with RTT
program requirements. They said the monitoring process for RTT
grantees builds on the process that the department uses to monitor all
discretionary grants. This process includes, among other things, (1)
establishing working partnerships with grantees in order to
effectively administer and monitor awards, (2) reviewing and approving
administrative changes to grants, (3) monitoring projects for
performance and financial compliance, (4) providing technical
assistance and feedback to grantees on their progress, and (5)
reviewing final outcomes and disseminating information about
successful results. In addition, Education requires states to monitor
how school districts use RTT funds.
Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is conducting a
series of national evaluations of RTT state grantees as part of its
evaluation of programs funded under the Recovery Act. In September
2010, IES awarded two contracts to evaluate RTT implementation,
outcomes, and impacts on student achievement. One evaluation will
examine multiple Recovery Act programs, including RTT, and the other
evaluation will focus on RTT and the School Improvement Grants
program. Several briefs and reports are expected from these studies
and, according to Education, the first one may be available in the
summer of 2011.
States Reported Taking a Variety of Actions and Investing Considerable
Resources to Be Competitive for Race to the Top Grants:
Officials in 6 of the states we interviewed--including 2 states that
received an RTT grant and 4 states that did not receive one--reported
making policy changes to reform their education systems in order to be
more competitive for RTT. Those policy changes included new state
legislation and formal decisions made by executive branch entities,
such as the governor or state board of education (see table 2). For
example, New York officials told us that their state enacted several
new education reform laws to be competitive for RTT, including a law
that allows school districts to partner with state-approved
organizations to manage their lowest-achieving schools. California
officials also told us that their state passed several laws to be
competitive for RTT. California's Governor called a special session of
the legislature, during which it passed a variety of laws--such as
adopting the Common Core State Standards and repealing an existing law
that prohibited the use of student achievement data in decisions such
as setting a teacher's pay or deciding whether a teacher should be
promoted.
Table 2: Reported Policy Changes States Took to Be More Competitive
for Race to the Top:
Policy change: Adopted new academic standards and joined a multistate
assessment consortia;
CA: [Check];
IL: [Empty];
LA: [Empty];
ME: [Empty];
NY: [Empty];
NC: [Empty].
Policy change: Expanded or linked student data systems;
CA: [Check];
IL: [Empty];
LA: [Empty];
ME: [Empty];
NY: [Check];
NC: [Empty].
Policy change: Removed prohibition of linking student and teacher data
for teacher evaluations;
CA: [Check];
IL: [Empty];
LA: [Empty];
ME: [Check];
NY: [Empty];
NC: [Empty].
Policy change: Required teacher or principal evaluations be based on
student academic growth;
CA: [Empty];
IL: [Check];
LA: [Check];
ME: [Empty];
NY: [Check];
NC: [Empty].
Policy change: Increased the state's ability to improve its lowest-
achieving schools;
CA: [Check];
IL: [Empty];
LA: [Check];
ME: [Empty];
NY: [Check];
NC: [Check].
Source: GAO summary of interviews with selected states.
[End of table]
In contrast, officials in the other 14 states we interviewed said that
their states made education policy changes during the RTT application
period, but those changes were not made specifically to be competitive
for an RTT grant. State officials explained that the changes their
state made reflected the culmination of education reform efforts that
began prior to the RTT competition.[Footnote 12] For example, Ohio
enacted legislation in 2009 that required the state to set more
challenging statewide academic standards, created new ways for
teachers to earn their teacher's license, and required college
readiness examinations for high school students. Ohio officials said
that the legislation was introduced before RTT was announced and was
not an action that Ohio took to be competitive for the grant. However,
they also told us that RTT being aligned with existing state policies
influenced their decision to apply for the grant. Arizona officials
told us that their state enacted legislation in 2010 that required a
variety of changes to their K-12 education system. These changes
included developing a new teacher evaluation system based on growth in
student achievement and establishing a commission to set guidelines
for student data collection and reporting. Arizona officials said
these legislative changes would have been made regardless of RTT.
In addition to making policy changes, officials in all 20 states we
interviewed said they conducted outreach to a variety of stakeholders--
including school district officials, state legislators, and
representatives from the business community--to build support for the
state's RTT application. To demonstrate a state's ability to implement
reforms statewide, the RTT application allowed states to submit signed
memoranda from school districts that agreed with the state's reform
plans. Officials in 10 states--4 grantee states and 6 nongrantee
states--told us they made significant efforts to secure the
participation of their school districts. For example, officials in
Ohio--a state with over 1,000 school districts (including more than
300 charter school districts)--said they met with district leadership,
traveled to districts for in-person meetings, and attended teacher
union meetings and training sessions on RTT to build consensus around
the reforms. In addition, officials in all 20 states we interviewed
told us they held meetings with education stakeholder groups, such as
state legislators, and members of the business community to discuss
the state's education reform plan and stakeholder roles in it. States
received letters of support from many organizations and state
legislators for their applications. For example, Pennsylvania reported
receiving over 270 letters of support for its Phase 2 RTT application
from a wide variety of individuals and groups, including some elected
officials, teacher unions, and businesses.
Officials in the 20 states we interviewed also told us that applying
for RTT required a significant amount of time and effort. Many
officials we interviewed estimated spending thousands of hours to
prepare the RTT application; however, they generally did not track the
total costs associated with their efforts. One state official
estimated that her state spent at least 4,000 hours preparing their
RTT application. Also, all 20 states we interviewed received grants to
hire consultants who helped prepare the RTT applications. For example,
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation reported funding technical
assistance providers who assisted 25 states in developing their RTT
applications.[Footnote 13] Each of these 25 states, including 14 of
the 20 we interviewed, received consulting services worth $250,000
with these funds. With grants such as these, states hired consultants
who provided a range of services, including drafting material for the
application and conducting background research and analysis. State
officials told us that consulting firms received between $75,000 and
$620,000 for their services. According to Education officials, states
commonly receive external support to apply for federal grants, such as
the Teacher Incentive Fund,[Footnote 14] in an effort to leverage
their resources more effectively. However, Education officials also
explained that the RTT competition was more comprehensive in scope
than other federal discretionary grants, which may have prompted
states to seek out a greater level of external support. Many state
officials reported that high-level staff from multiple state offices
helped prepare the application. For example, officials in North
Carolina told us that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the Chairman of the State Board of Education led the team that
wrote the state's application and that the Governor presented part of
the state's application to a group of peer reviewers during the
application review process. While state officials told us that they
had to invest a significant amount of time and effort in applying for
RTT, several officials in both grantee and nongrantee states also
noted that their state benefited from the collaboration and
comprehensive planning that the RTT application process required.
Grantees Plan to Implement a Variety of Reforms and Selected
Nongrantees Will Continue Some Reforms but at a Slower Pace:
Grantee States Plan to Use the Largest Share of Their Funds to
Increase Teacher Effectiveness:
Education awarded over $3.9 billion in RTT grants to states that
implement reforms in four areas: (1) developing effective teachers and
leaders, (2) improving the lowest-achieving schools, (3) expanding
student data systems, and (4) enhancing standards and
assessments.[Footnote 15] States collectively plan to use the largest
share of their $2 billion in RTT funds--nearly one-third, or $654.1
million--to improve the effectiveness of teachers and leaders. States
plan to use the next largest share--nearly one-quarter, or $478.5
million--to turn around their lowest-achieving schools. The remaining
funds will be spent in multiple areas in their reform plans. Officials
from several states said that RTT funds will allow them to implement
reforms more quickly, to serve a greater number of students, or to
leverage related federal grants, such as those awarded through the
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant program,[Footnote 16] to
implement their reforms. See figure 2 for the distribution of RTT
funds between states and school districts and, for states, by primary
reform area.
Figure 2: Distribution of RTT Grant Budgets:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart and subchart]
School district subgrants ($1.9 billion): 49%;
State-level grants ($2.0 billion): 51%;
Of those 51%:
Developing effective teachers and leaders ($654.1 million): 33%;
Improving the lowest-achieving schools ($478.5 million): 24%;
Expanding student data systems ($353.4 million): 18%;
Enhancing standards and assessments ($312.5 million): 16%;
Other[A] ($193.9 million): 10%.
Source: GAO analysis of states‘ approved RTT budgets.
Notes: We did not analyze school district spending because it was
outside the scope of our review. However, Education officials told us
that they reviewed school district scopes of work to ensure that they
aligned with their state's RTT plans.
School district subgrants total to 49 percent because the Hawaii
Department of Education serves as both the state education agency and
the state's only local educational agency; therefore, the state's
approved grant budget does not have funds for participating school
districts.
[A] Other includes funds used for charter schools and funds used in
multiple areas.
[End of figure]
Developing Effective Teachers and Leaders:
Several states and selected school districts plan to implement one or
more of three activities under the teachers and leaders reform area,
including (1) training teachers to use student performance data to
improve their instruction, (2) developing systems to evaluate teacher
and principal effectiveness, and (3) providing professional
development to improve the skills of incoming and current teachers and
school leaders.[Footnote 17] The following examples illustrate planned
uses of RTT funds for these activities:
* Training teachers to use student performance data to improve
instruction. Delaware plans to spend about $7 million to hire 29 data
coaches to work with small groups of teachers to improve instruction
using student performance data. These teachers will use technology-
based tools called instructional improvement systems[Footnote 18] to
guide them through this process. Under Delaware's new academic
assessment system, teachers will be able to make instructional changes
with real-time data from student assessments that will be administered
several times a year. Delaware state officials said that RTT will
provide funds for data coaches in schools with limited numbers of high-
need students and that they would not be able to provide these
resources without the funds. (Prior to RTT, the state had been using
data coaches in schools with the greatest number of high-need
students.) According to Delaware state officials, the first five
coaches were scheduled to start working with teachers as a pilot
program in March 2011 in five districts, and by July 2011 each school
in the state will have access to a data coach for two full school
years. After 2 years, state officials expect that data coaches will
have built enough capacity in each school district, so that district
leaders can independently provide support to teachers in using the
data.
* Developing systems to evaluate teacher and principal effectiveness.
New York plans to spend approximately $2.6 million to develop and
adopt a new value-added student growth model, which will measure
annual changes in individual student academic performance and tie the
performance to teacher evaluations. According to state officials and
their RTT application, a new state law requires all classroom teachers
and principals to be evaluated based in part on student data, which
will include assessment results and other measures of achievement. The
law also establishes annual teacher evaluations as a significant
factor for employment decisions such as promotion and retention.
* Providing professional development to improve the skills of incoming
and current teachers and school leaders. North Carolina plans to spend
approximately $37 million on professional development. The state plans
to work with contractors with expertise in professional development
and information technology to develop, maintain, and support Web-based
training on the transition to the new standards, analyzing student
data, and using an instructional improvement system. North Carolina
officials plan to develop training in the coming months and complete
it by October 2013. According to North Carolina state officials, Web-
based training will eventually be available in every school district
and will help ensure that professional development materials are
consistent. These officials told us that without RTT funds, they would
not have been able to provide this training in every district. In
addition, the state plans to spend $18.6 million to create Regional
Leadership Academies that, according to North Carolina state
officials, are a major part of their professional development plan.
These academies will recruit and prepare principals to serve in and
improve the state's lowest-achieving schools.
Improving the Lowest-Achieving Schools:
Several states plan to use RTT funds to give the state more authority
to turn around their lowest-achieving schools, provide additional
resources to those schools, or both. In particular, officials we spoke
with in Tennessee are creating a statewide school district (governed
by the state), and officials in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York
are working with external partners to improve their lowest-achieving
schools. The states plan to provide these districts with additional
resources and more flexibility in how they operate. For example,
Tennessee plans to use approximately $45.6 million to create a new
entity known as the "Achievement School District" to improve the
state's persistently lowest-achieving schools. According to the
state's application, to be selected for the new state-run district,
schools must be (1) persistently low-achieving, as defined by the
state, and (2) have attempted to restructure for at least 1 year in
accordance with the state's accountability plan under ESEA.[Footnote
19] The state will remove selected schools from governance by their
home districts and appoint a district superintendent to oversee the
schools. Also, Tennessee will work with consultants to determine which
one of the four intervention models outlined in the RTT application--
turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation--will be applied to
each school in the Achievement School District in the 2011-2012 school
year and to help implement the selected models. One Tennessee state
official said that although the state would have created the
Achievement School District without RTT funding, RTT accelerated the
implementation of this reform effort.
Expanding Student Data Systems:
Several states plan to improve their data systems to increase access
to and use of data. For example, Maryland plans to use $5 million on a
3-year project to design, develop, and implement a data system that
links data on individuals as they progress from preschool through
higher education and into the workforce. The data system will allow
the state to conduct analyses on topics such as K-12 educational
readiness and remediation and to provide this information to
policymakers. The data system will also allow Maryland state officials
to study key research and policy issues, such as the effect of the
prekindergarten through 12th grade curriculum in preparing students
for higher education, and the effectiveness of higher education in
preparing students for careers after college. Maryland state officials
told us they are using a combination of contractors and additional
staff to implement their data projects, as well as to ensure their
long-term sustainability.
Enhancing Standards and Assessments:
Several states plan to implement activities under the standards and
assessments reform area to support improvements in classroom
instruction. The states will (1) train teachers on the Common Core
State Standards and develop curricula that are aligned with these
standards, (2) develop assessments to measure instructional
improvement and evaluate student knowledge and skills throughout the
year, or both. The following examples illustrate planned uses of RTT
funds for these activities:
* Training on Common Core State Standards and developing related
curricula. Rhode Island plans to spend $5 million to provide
professional development to teachers and principals to ensure that
they understand the newly adopted common standards and how standards,
curriculum, and assessments align with one another. Specifically,
during the summers of 2011 and 2012, state officials plan to train 85
percent of the core teachers in urban districts and selected teachers
in nonurban districts. In addition, some teachers in selected school
districts, especially those with diverse student populations, will
learn to develop activities that align with the common standards and
use them in their schools. State officials told us that teachers will
be more likely to use the assessment activities if the teachers are
involved in the activities' design.
* Developing assessments to improve instruction and to evaluate
student knowledge and skills throughout the year. Florida plans to
spend approximately $81.5 million to develop and use assessments to
guide improvements in reading and mathematics instruction and to
evaluate student knowledge and skills throughout the year in multiple
content areas. The goals of these assessments are to enhance student
learning and support the transition to more rigorous K-12 standards
that build toward college and career readiness. Florida state
officials said this project may also help prepare the state and
districts to use assessments being developed as part of the
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers.
[Footnote 20]
Nongrantee States Expect to Continue Implementing Some of Their
Planned Reforms:
In addition to our interviews with grantee states and review of their
plans, we interviewed officials in 8 selected states that applied for--
but did not receive--RTT grants to find out whether they plan to
continue their reform efforts. Officials from the 8 nongrantee states
we interviewed expect to implement some of their planned reforms, even
though they did not receive RTT grants; however, they told us that
implementation would be slower than if they had received an RTT award
and would involve using other funds:
* Officials in 5 of the nongrantee states reported moving ahead with
plans to implement teacher evaluation systems, but at a different
scale or pace than stated in their RTT applications. For example,
officials in California decided to allow districts to implement the
new teacher evaluations on a discretionary basis rather than
implementing the evaluations statewide. Officials in Illinois told us
they are moving ahead with a requirement for districts to include
student academic growth in teacher evaluations. However, they noted
that if the state had received the RTT grant, they would have
accelerated the implementation of that requirement by two to three
school years.
* Officials in all 8 nongrantee states we interviewed reported having
to scale back or delay plans to expand state data systems,
particularly those designed to provide teachers with real-time
assessment data on students. For example, officials in Maine reported
they are developing assessments that teachers can use to improve
instruction, but without RTT funds, the assessments will not be
developed as quickly.
* Officials in the 8 nongrantee states we interviewed told us that
they still plan to implement the Common Core State Standards, but
officials in 6 nongrantee states mentioned having to scale back plans
to offer professional development supporting this transition.
State officials in the 8 nongrantee states said they planned to
implement selected reforms indicated on their RTT applications,
although with a combination of other federal, state, local, and
private funds. For example, a Louisiana official said the state will
seek private funds to help school districts recruit new teachers and
principals, as well as retain and train effective teachers and
principals, particularly in the lowest-achieving schools.
States Reported Facing a Variety of Challenges That Have Led to Some
Implementation Delays:
Officials in 9 of the 12 grantee states reported facing a variety of
challenges--such as difficulty identifying and hiring qualified staff
and complying with state procedures for awarding contracts--that led
to several implementation delays. State officials in Massachusetts,
New York, North Carolina, and Ohio encountered difficulties hiring
qualified personnel to administer RTT projects. For example, officials
from Ohio said they had difficulty hiring qualified people for their
state-level RTT positions. They explained that when Education approved
their RTT grant application in September 2010, many of the most
qualified staff had already been employed in several school districts.
Ohio officials added that many individuals with the skills and
abilities to manage RTT activities and projects can earn higher
salaries in some school districts than they can working for the state.
In addition, officials in Florida, New York, and Ohio told us they
encountered delays in awarding contracts. For example, New York is
using $50 million of its RTT grant to develop a data system that will
provide teachers with data on areas where their students may be
struggling in order to help the teachers improve their instruction.
The state planned to issue a Request for Proposals in December 2010 to
help identify a contractor who could help develop part of the system.
However, state officials told us they needed more time to develop the
request because the project was complicated and required input from
multiple stakeholders. State officials said they planned to issue the
request by the spring of 2011, but at the time of our review, the
proposal had not yet been issued.
Officials in the states we visited--Delaware, New York, Ohio, and
Tennessee--said they experienced other challenges that led to months-
long delays in implementing 13 of 29 selected RTT projects.[Footnote
21] For example, Delaware adjusted its plan for hiring data coaches,
individuals who assist teachers with understanding the results of
student assessment data and help them modify their instruction.
Initially, the state planned to hire 15 data coaches in January 2011
and an additional 20 beginning in September 2011, assuming the cost
for each coach was $68,000. However, as they started the process of
hiring coaches, state officials determined their cost estimate was
insufficient to hire qualified personnel. Instead, they determined
they needed about $80,000 per coach and lowered the number of total
coaches to 29. Also, state officials determined it would be too
disruptive to hire 15 coaches in the middle of a school year. The
state decided to hire coaches between February and May 2011, with the
goal of having all 29 coaches in place by September 2011. Improved
planning on the part of the RTT grantees could have minimized the
timeline delays that resulted from complicated state-level procurement
processes or hiring challenges. Officials from three states
acknowledged that at least some of their timelines were overly
optimistic. Nonetheless, challenges such as these are not entirely
unexpected given the amount of planning needed to assemble a
comprehensive reform plan that involves numerous local entities and
stakeholders.
In addition to the challenges cited, Education's review of state
documentation has taken longer than anticipated, in part because of
the department's need to review changes to state plans. According to
Education officials, when Phase 2 grantee states submitted their
scopes of work in November 2010, they included changes to their
original RTT budgets and timelines, which Education had to review and
approve.[Footnote 22] For example, Education approved Massachusetts's
request to reschedule two activities in the teacher and leaders reform
area from year 1 to year 2, due to hiring delays. For these reasons,
Education has taken longer than it anticipated to approve state scopes
of work. As of April 28, 2011, Education had approved scopes of work
for 9 of the12 RTT grantee states. Department officials said they
continue to work with the remaining states to complete the approval
process for their scopes of work.
As a result of these challenges, states have been slow to draw down
their RTT grant funds. As of June 3, 2011, states had drawn down about
$96 million, or 12 percent, of the year 1 total RTT grant funds
totaling almost $800 million (see table 3), although Delaware and
Tennessee have had access to their funds for about a year, and the
other grantees have had access to their funds for several months.
[Footnote 23]
Table 3: RTT Grant Funds Drawn Down as of June 3, 2011:
Phase 1:
State: Delaware;
Date Education approved state scope of work: July 22, 2010;
Year 1 budget: $21,393,680;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $10,607,438;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 50%.
State: Tennessee;
Date Education approved state scope of work: April 12, 2010;
Year 1 budget: $120,315,068;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $43,169,124;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 36%.
Phase 2:
State: District of Columbia;
Date Education approved state scope of work: February 2, 2011;
Year 1 budget: $19,296,358;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $2,033,867;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 11%.
State: Florida;
Date Education approved state scope of work: Not yet approved;
Year 1 budget: $127,952,874;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $14,499,739;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 11%.
State: Georgia;
Date Education approved state scope of work: Not yet approved;
Year 1 budget: $94,138,298;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $1,662,320;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 2%.
State: Hawaii;
Date Education approved state scope of work: March 22, 2011;
Year 1 budget: $17,384,801;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $205,616;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 1%.
State: Maryland;
Date Education approved state scope of work: April 8, 2011;
Year 1 budget: $73,070,933;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $2,329,394;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 3%.
State: Massachusetts;
Date Education approved state scope of work: January 12, 2011;
Year 1 budget: $34,923,353;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $3,778,260;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 11%.
State: New York;
Date Education approved state scope of work: Not yet approved;
Year 1 budget: $88,948,722;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $854,565;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 1%.
State: North Carolina;
Date Education approved state scope of work: January 31, 2011;
Year 1 budget: $80,596,382;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $8,774,268;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 11%.
State: Ohio;
Date Education approved state scope of work: January 28, 2011;
Year 1 budget: $97,044,195;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $7,239,399;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 7%.
State: Rhode Island[A];
Date Education approved state scope of work: April 8, 2011;
Year 1 budget: $24,812,514;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $1,009,411;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 4%.
State: Total;
Year 1 budget: $799,877,178;
Grant funds drawn down: Amount: $96,163,401;
Grant funds drawn down: As a percentage of year 1 budget: 12%.
Source: Education.
Notes: States had access to 12.5 percent of their total award when
their grants were announced and prior to the deadlines to submit their
scopes of work. All Phase 2 states submitted their scopes of work to
Education on November 22, 2010. States received the rest of their
grant funds, including funds for school district activities, once
their scopes of work and other key documents were finalized and
approved.
Year 1 budgets include revisions based on changes to state plans as
approved by Education through May 23, 2011.
[A] The Year 1 budget for Rhode Island includes $12,406,257 for state-
level activities and an equal amount for school district activities;
however, the amount for district activities is only an estimate.
Education officials clarified that Rhode Island does not have a
specific amount set aside for district funding on a year-by-year
basis. Instead, funds will be disbursed to districts as services are
provided according to district-level scopes of work. The state's
proposed budget provides a 4-year total to ensure that districts
receive at least 50 percent of the total grant by the end of four-year
grant period (as required by law).
[End of table]
Education officials told us that states have the full 4-year grant
period to draw down their entire grant funds. They said states that
anticipate not drawing down the full amount of their year-1 budgets
have requested changes to their reform plan that would allow them to
make additional expenditures in later years. For example, Florida
officials plan to request that Education allow them to revise their
budgets and allocate some year-1 funds in their budget for year 2. In
addition, some states have spent less of their grant funds than
originally anticipated, to ensure that sufficient internal controls
and cash management procedures were in place before requesting
reimbursement. For example, an official from the District of Columbia
told us that they can only make drawdowns after a payment has been
made. This is due in part to the District's status as a "high-risk"
grantee, a designation applied by Education to grantees that, among
other things, have experienced significant challenges administering
their grants in the past. The official explained that, as of March
2011, the District had spent almost $13 million of its own funds for
activities related to its RTT grant and that he expected the District
to spend funds at a faster pace in the future.
Education Provided Extensive Support and Is Monitoring States'
Activities, but Its Efforts to Facilitate Information Sharing Are
Somewhat Limited:
Education Provided Extensive Support and Guidance to States during
Early Implementation:
Education provided support to states as they have begun to implement
their reform plans. For example, Education assigned program officers
to each state to help determine how the department could support the
grantee states as they implement their RTT plans. According to
Education and several state officials, program officers talk with
state officials by telephone at least once a month and review the
state's monthly progress reports to determine if the state is on
schedule and on budget and to provide assistance with any state-
reported issues. Program officers identify and provide support or
direct state officials to appropriate sources of support for any
issues associated with implementing funded activities. Program
officers also answer state officials' questions and provide guidance
and support on an as-needed basis, seeking assistance from department
officials when necessary. For example, Education officials told us
that, after Delaware approved their school districts' scopes of work
for year 1, they approved Delaware's request for an additional year to
work with districts to update and improve their plans for years 2
through 4 of the grant period. Officials from most grantee states told
us that Education generally provided helpful support after their
initial grant awards.
In addition to the support provided by program officers, Education
created a process to allow states to make changes to their reform
plans and issued and updated written guidance and other documents to
help states implement RTT activities. For example, Education posted on
its Web site a "frequently asked questions" document, as well as state
scopes of work, award letters, final budget summaries, and amendment
decision letters. Several state officials we spoke with said that
having these materials on Education's Web site is helpful. Education
has also provided additional guidance on specific challenges. For
example, the department helped Tennessee officials correct their
indirect-cost calculations and submit a revised budget after being
selected as a grantee in Phase 1.[Footnote 24] After working with
Tennessee officials to make the needed changes, Education provided
additional guidance on calculating indirect costs for Phase 2
applicants and made this information available for all applicants on
the department's Web site.
Education Has Begun to Monitor State Implementation of RTT-Funded
Activities:
Education has begun its process to monitor states' progress in meeting
program goals. Since the grants were awarded, the department has been
tracking states' activities and challenges by regularly communicating
with states, reviewing their monthly progress reports, and reviewing
other documentation, such as state scopes of work. Education's
monitoring protocol uses a common set of questions to oversee state
progress and to address specific needs and challenges of each grantee.
This protocol requires states to submit a progress update each month
that provides information on activities selected in consultation with
Education and based on their state scope of work and application. In
addition, Education will hold discussions with states twice a year.
Prior to these discussions, states are to provide additional
information, such as any updates needed to their monthly progress
reports and their assessment of the extent to which they are on track
to reach their performance goals. In addition, Education plans to
conduct annual, on-site reviews of RTT program operations and
activities in each state and to require states to submit an annual
performance report that documents their progress in achieving planned
education reforms. The department plans to finalize these reporting
requirements in the summer of 2011. According to Education officials,
the agency plans to issue various reports based on RTT monitoring: (1)
annual state-specific progress reports on RTT starting in late 2011
that will include information on implementation and performance; (2)
an annual report on the progress of all 12 states collectively; and
(3) a report to be issued at the end of the 4-year grant period on the
overall experience, including lessons learned.
In addition to federal monitoring, states will monitor school district
implementation of grant activities. Education initially required state
grantees to submit their school district monitoring plans within 6
months of their grants being announced. However, Education officials
told us that state officials wanted to review the department's
monitoring plan before designing their own plans for school districts.
In February 2011, Education informed states that their plans for
monitoring districts would not be due until Education finalized its
state monitoring plan. Education finalized its plan in April 2011, and
all states subsequently submitted their plans.
Education Facilitates Information Sharing, but Grantees Want More
Information, and Nongrantees Are Unaware of Plans to Share Lessons
Learned:
Education has taken steps to facilitate information sharing and
collaboration among states. Specifically, Education is working with a
contractor to provide technical assistance, such as developing a Web
site through which RTT states can collaborate and hold meetings--known
as communities of practice--on topics of common interest. Education
officials said the secure Web site allows states to share ideas,
documents, and other information. Communities of practice will address
topics such as implementing new teacher evaluation systems. Education
conducted two webinars in November 2010 on teacher evaluation, and in
December 2010, Education convened officials from grantee states in
Washington, D.C., to share guidance and challenges on the topic.
Additional topics that have been covered include measuring academic
growth in nontested subjects, such as music and art. Education
officials said that in the future, the communities of practice will
include a combination of in-person and online gatherings and will be
flexible and responsive to state needs. Education is planning another
meeting in the fall of 2011 for states to discuss strategies to turn
around low-achieving schools.
In addition, while grantee states told us they contact each other to
exchange information, they said they would like more opportunities to
share promising practices. According to education officials from
Delaware, for example, they shared information with Rhode Island and
other states about providing technical assistance to school districts
to help them implement reforms at the district level. Tennessee
officials told us they shared their state-level plans and their
template for school district scopes of work with several Phase 2
grantees before Education published examples on its Web site. However,
grantee states expressed interest in additional opportunities to share
promising practices. North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island plan to
develop statewide data systems to improve instruction, which state
officials expect will help teachers analyze their students'
performance data to better address academic material that students
find difficult to understand. Officials from these states said they
are interested in working with other states on developing and
implementing these systems. In addition, Tennessee officials told us
that once they begin implementing models to turn around low-achieving
schools with their Achievement School District, they could share their
experiences. They said doing so could be helpful since most states do
not have experience with turning around low-achieving schools on the
scale that Tennessee plans to attempt.
Many nongrantee states continue to implement key reforms. However,
officials from most (6 of the 8) nongrantee states we spoke with told
us they were not able to access the Web site and were not aware of the
Education-sponsored communities of practice. For example, an education
official from Arizona said that he receives many e-mails from
Education, but the department has not notified him of any plans to
share practices or information about RTT. He added that he would
appreciate having the opportunity to gain knowledge from grantees.
Because Arizona has other federal grants, such as the School
Improvement Grant for turning around low-achieving schools, he would
like to know how RTT states and school districts are leveraging other
federal funding sources to implement activities that align with the
RTT reform areas.[Footnote 25]
In addition to states' interests in sharing information, Education has
certain policies that support information sharing and collaboration.
Education generally requires states and their subgrantees to make
information about their RTT-funded projects and activities available
to others by, for example, posting that information on a Web site
identified or sponsored by Education. Education also requires all
program officers responsible for administering discretionary grant
programs to share program results and information about significant
achievements, including the best available research and practices that
could inform other projects with the public. As mentioned earlier,
Education's technical assistance network has provided grantees, but
not other states, with opportunities to collaborate on topics, such as
teacher evaluation.
Conclusions:
The RTT grant competition prompted a robust national dialogue about
comprehensive education reform and the role of competitive grants to
support these reforms. It led some states to undertake new initiatives
and others to accelerate their existing and planned educational reform
efforts. While it is too soon to know whether these initiatives will
help close achievement gaps or significantly improve outcomes for K-12
students, the broader impact of RTT's reform efforts may be more
evident over time through, for example, Education's impact evaluation
study and other related studies. Whether the momentum around the
reform initiatives and efforts to implement them can be sustained over
time may depend on a number of factors, including the progress that
states make as they begin to implement their reform initiatives. In
addition, if state funding for K-12 education declines, states might
face challenges sustaining RTT reform efforts once grant funds are no
longer available.
The overarching goal of RTT is to foster large-scale education reform.
Sharing information with nongrantee states carrying out similar
initiatives can accelerate the pace and scope of reform efforts and is
a sound investment of resources. And if states are to get the greatest
possible return on investment, efforts to facilitate sharing of
information should begin soon. Information sharing among grantees is
also important. Without opportunities for grantees to share
information and experiences, states may miss opportunities to learn
from each other and leverage their experiences.
Although Education provided support to grantees as they began
implementing their initial activities, most grantees have faced
challenges meeting some interim deadlines. While states might have
done a better job of anticipating some of their challenges, they were
tasked with developing comprehensive reform plans requiring extensive
planning and coordination with a broad array of stakeholders. Missing
interim deadlines has not yet derailed states from their original
reform plans. However, short-term delays could eventually lead to
longer-term delays, and grantees may risk falling short of their
ultimate goals. While Education has begun monitoring grantee progress,
it is important that Education ensure that states meet their required
timelines and receive assistance to stay on track. It is also
important that Education continue to gather information from states on
their challenges and respond in a timely manner.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that the lessons learned from RTT are shared with all
states, and not only grantees, we recommend that the Secretary of
Education take the following two actions:
1. Facilitate grantees' sharing of promising practices on key topics
of interest that the department has not yet addressed, such as the
design and implementation of data systems to improve instruction.
2. Provide nongrantee states with information from the department's
existing mechanisms, including the secure grantee Web site and
communities of practice.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Education for
review and comment. Education's comments are reproduced in appendix
IV. Education agreed that it should facilitate information sharing
among grantee states on topics that the department has not yet
addressed, and the department said it will do so beginning in August
2011. However, while the department agreed that sharing information
with nongrantees is important, it did not agree that nongrantees
should have access to the secure grantee Web site or the communities
of practice. As noted in its response, the department believes
grantees should have more time to work together on common problems
before providing access to specific information-sharing mechanisms to
other states. Education also noted that it plans to make the resources
and lessons learned from grantee states available to all states at
some point in the future. We maintain that nongrantee states that are
implementing reforms similar to those funded by RTT could benefit from
the discussions grantees have and related documents they may develop.
However, we modified our recommendation to acknowledge that Education
can provide information from the Web site and communities of practice
to nongrantees without necessarily giving them direct access to those
mechanisms.
Education said that it does not believe that the rate at which states
are drawing down their grant funds is a reliable indicator of
progress. However, we continue to believe that the relatively low
amount of funds drawn down at this point is a result of challenges
states have experienced to date. We highlight this issue to
acknowledge the implications of--and provide context for--some of the
challenges faced by grantee states as they implement the largest
competitive grant program that Education has administered.
Education provided us with additional information about its program
review process and clarified some information related to reasons that
states may have delayed spending their first year grants. We modified
our report to reflect these clarifications and incorporated the
department's technical comments, where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Secretary of Education. In addition, the report is
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Vice Chairman:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John P. Kline:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Member:
Education and the Workforce Committee:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Harold Rogers:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa:
Chairman:
The Honorable Elijah Cummings:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address our first objective about actions states took to be
competitive for Race to the Top (RTT) grants, we reviewed proposed and
final requirements for the RTT grant competition, as well as documents
from the U. S. Department of Education (Education), including the
grant application template, scoring guidelines, and guidance
materials. We reviewed RTT applications for 20 of the 47 states that
applied for RTT grants, as listed in table 4.
Table 4: States with RTT Applications That We Reviewed:
States that received an RTT grant:
Delaware;
District of Columbia;
Florida;
Georgia;
Hawaii;
Maryland;
Massachusetts;
New York;
North Carolina;
Ohio;
Rhode Island;
Tennessee.
Selected states that applied for but did not receive an RTT grant:
Arizona;
California;
Illinois;
Indiana;
Louisiana;
Maine;
Pennsylvania;
West Virginia.
Source: Education.
[End of table]
The 8 nongrantee states we selected varied in several respects,
including the phase in which the state applied, the number of
elementary and secondary education students in the state, and the
geographic location of the state. We interviewed state education
agency officials from the 20 states to review information in their RTT
applications and to discuss state efforts to apply for the grant. We
identified several policy decisions or legislative actions states took
to be competitive for RTT grants in the four major reform areas--
enhancing standards and assessments, expanding data systems,
developing effective teachers and leaders, and improving states'
lowest-achieving schools. We also identified other actions states took
to apply for RTT grants. To determine whether a state changed a
certain policy or law to be competitive for RTT, we used the following
criteria: (1) the change in law or policy occurred within the RTT
application period, (2) state officials attributed the change or the
effort to being a factor in applying for the RTT grant, and (3) state
officials reported that the change would not have happened without the
RTT competition. To describe state laws or policy changes, we relied
on interviews with state officials and documentation they provided,
but did not independently analyze or otherwise review state laws or
policies.
To describe how grantee states planned to use their RTT grant funds,
we reviewed states' RTT applications, RTT grant budgets, and scopes of
work. We reviewed narrative statements in the applications in each
grantee state in each of the four reform areas. We analyzed RTT grant
budgets by calculating the total planned expenditures for all projects
by reform area, as well as total planned expenditures for different
types of budget categories. Major budget categories included personnel
expenses, contracts, or state allocations to school districts. We
reviewed grant draw-down amounts provided by Education. We interviewed
state education officials from all 12 grantee states, including
telephone interviews with 8 grantee states and site visits to 4
grantee states--Delaware, New York, Ohio, and Tennessee. We selected
site visit states to provide variation across several criteria,
including the grant phase in which the state applied, the number of
elementary and secondary education students in the state, the
geographic location of the state, and the percentage of school
districts participating in the RTT application. During our site
visits, we interviewed state officials and officials from three to
four school districts per state. To provide a range of perspectives,
we selected school districts that varied across several criteria,
including the extent to which the district was mentioned in the state
RTT application; whether the district was in an urban, suburban, or
rural area; the percentage of high-minority schools in the district;
and the percentage of high-poverty schools in the district. In total,
we interviewed officials from 15 school districts, including three
interviews by telephone. We interviewed officials in grantee states
and districts about their planned uses for RTT grant funds, their
perspectives on the benefits of their planned uses, challenges they
have experienced in beginning to implement grant activities, and
support provided by Education. To summarize the extent to which
nongrantee states have chosen to implement reforms planned in their
RTT applications, we reviewed the relevant RTT applications and
interviewed state education officials from the 8 selected nongrantee
states by telephone. We chose major policy actions outlined in their
RTT applications and asked the nongrantees about the status of those
actions.
To summarize challenges that grantee states faced when implementing
the RTT grants, we interviewed state education officials from all 12
grantee states, including the four site-visit states. Across the four
site-visit states, we selected 29 projects for in-depth review. The
projects were selected based on the amount of funding planned for the
project and to ensure variation across the four reform areas. To
assess how Education was responding to states' challenges and
otherwise providing support to states and planning to monitor states,
we interviewed officials from the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education and the Implementation and Support Unit. We also interviewed
officials in the Institute of Education Sciences about its RTT
evaluation and officials in the Risk Management Service about their
role in monitoring high-risk RTT states. We also reviewed relevant
federal laws, regulations, and Education guidance documents, including:
* the notice inviting applications for RTT,
* the final rule for the competition,
* the RTT application template,
* an internal handbook for administering discretionary grants,
* a document describing Education's process for making amendments to
RTT applications,
* documentation related to Education's RTT monitoring plans,
* a "frequently asked questions" document, and:
* technical assistance presentation slides and meeting transcripts.
We also reviewed selected states' monthly reports submitted to
Education. These documents helped us determine the extent to which
Education provided support and guidance to states during the
application process and as states began to implement their grant
activities.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2010 to June 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation Grant Funds:
The following table provides a description of RTT, RTT Assessment
Program, and the Investing in Innovation grant funds.
Table 5: Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation Grant Funds:
Grant fund: Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation grant funds;
Funds authorized through the Recovery Act: $5 billion.
Grant fund: Investing in Innovation grant fund;
Description of grant program: Education provided grants to 49 school
districts and nonprofit organizations to implement and expand a
variety of education reform efforts;
Funds authorized through the Recovery Act: Up to $650 million;
Funds awarded by Education: $646 million.
Grant fund: Race to the Top grant fund;
Description of grant program: Education awarded grants to 12 states
related to four reform areas: developing effective teachers and
leaders, improving the lowest-achieving schools, expanding student
data systems, and enhancing standards and assessments;
Funds authorized through the Recovery Act: Remainder of funds;
Funds awarded by Education: $3.9 billion.
Grant fund: Race to the Top Assessment Program;
Description of grant program: Education awarded grants to two
consortia of states--including all states that received grants through
the RTT grant fund--to develop advanced academic assessment systems;
Funds authorized through the Recovery Act: not applicable;
Funds awarded by Education: $362 million.
Source: Recovery Act and Education.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Criteria Used to Guide the Selection of States to
Receive RTT Grant Awards:
The following table provides the criteria Education identified for
application reviewers to use as part of the process to make RTT grant
awards.
Table 6: Criteria for Race to the Top Grant Awards:
Reform area: State success factors;
Criteria:
* Articulate state's education reform agenda and school district
participation in the state's reform efforts;
* Build strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain
proposed plans;
* Demonstrate significant progress in raising achievement and closing
gaps.
Reform area: Standards and assessments;
Reform conditions criteria:
* Develop and adopt common standards;
* Develop and implement common high-quality assessments;
Reform plan criteria:
* Support transition to enhanced standards and high-quality
assessments.
Reform area: Data systems;
Reform conditions criteria:
* Fully implement a statewide longitudinal data system;
Reform plan criteria:
* Access and use state data;
* Use data to improve instruction.
Reform area: Teachers and leaders;
Reform conditions criteria:
* Provide high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals;
Reform plan criteria:
* Improve teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance;
* Ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals;
* Improve the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation
programs;
* Provide effective support to teachers and principals.
Reform area: Lowest-achieving schools;
Reform conditions criteria:
* Intervene in the lowest-achieving schools and school districts;
Reform plan criteria:
* Turn around the lowest-achieving schools.
Reform area: General criteria;
Reform conditions criteria:
* Make education funding a priority;
* Ensure successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and
other innovative schools;
* Demonstrate other significant reform conditions;
Reform plan criteria: None.
Source: 74 Fed. Reg. 59,688, 59,801-59,804 (Nov. 18, 2009).
Note: In addition to these criteria, Education gave states the option
to include other proposals in their plans, such as proposals to
prepare more students for advanced study and careers in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics fields and proposals for
states to work together to develop joint longitudinal data systems.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Washington, DC 20202:
[hyperlink, http://www.ed.gov]
[The Department of Education's mission is to promote student
achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering
educational excellence and ensuring equal access.]
June 6, 2011:
Mr. George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Scott:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Offices's (GAO's) draft report on "Race to the Top:
Reform Efforts Under Way, Information Sharing Could Be Improved." The
draft report includes "Recommendations for Executive Action," which
read as follows:
To ensure that the lessons learned from RTT are shared with all
states, not only grantees, we recommend that the Secretary of
Education:
* facilitate grantees' sharing of promising practices on key topics of
interest that the department has not yet addressed, such as the design
and implementation of data systems to improve instruction; and
* provide non-grantee states with access to existing tools to receive
information, including the secure grantee Web site and communities of
practice.
We appreciate the time that your office devoted to this study and, in
particular, the efforts that were made to obtain the views of both
Race to the Top grantee States and States that applied but were not
awarded a Race to the Top grant. The views of both grantee and non-
grantee States are important in understanding the impact of the Race
to the Top program and its overall goal of driving States to implement
bold reforms to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality
education.
Every State that applied to Race to the Top showed a tremendous amount
of leadership and commitment to education reform. That the non-grantee
States in your study acknowledged the benefits from the collaboration
and comprehensive planning that the Race to the Top application
process prompted illustrates that the benefits of the Race to the Top
program extended well beyond the grantee States. We were especially
pleased that officials in the non-grantee States in your study said
that they are implementing some of the reforms they proposed in their
applications using other federal, State, local, and private funds We
want to support these States and ensure that all States continue to
benefit from Race to the Top.
With regard to your first recommendation, that the Department
"facilitate grantees' sharing of promising practices on key topics of
interest that the department has not yet addressed," please note that
the Department conducted a number of webinars, conference calls, and
meetings for grantee States beyond the two webinars and one meeting on
teacher evaluation that are mentioned in your report. These webinars,
conference calls, and meetings focused on a variety of topics:
stakeholder engagement, school turnarounds, and teacher and leader
effectiveness. Enclosed is a list of these activities (see Enclosure
A). In response to grantee States' requests that we not hold any
technical assistance activities in the months of June and July due to
their heavy workloads during these months, we will begin an additional
series of activities in August 2011, that will focus on key topics of
interest that the Department has not yet addressed and provide grantee
States with additional opportunities to share promising practices and
lessons learned.
We agree with your report that grantees are eager to share information
with their counterparts in other States. At their suggestion, in
February we began monthly conference calls with the Race to the Top
leads in each State to provide a forum for them to discuss issues and
topics of their choice, including promising practices and lessons
learned. We loosely focus the calls on the successes and challenges
identified by those States. In addition, on March 29 and 30 of this
year, we brought together the Chief State School Officer from each
grantee State to discuss amongst themselves and with the Secretary and
senior Department officials the support they need to be successful in
their reform efforts.
Race to the Top grantees also share information using the secure Web
site that we launched last October. As noted in your report, the Web
site allows grantees to share ideas, documents, and other information.
Grantees post both documents and links on the Web site to share with
their grantee colleagues, and our technical assistance contractor
populates the Web site with relevant information as well. In addition,
the Web site includes a shared calendar and permits grantee States to
identify colleagues in similar roles (e.g., the teacher and leader
evaluation lead, the turnaround lead), so that grantees can
collaborate with each other on specific topic areas. In April, we
launched an enhanced Web site to provide grantees with many more tools
with which to collaborate (e.g., enhanced document sharing and
navigation, discussion forums, subscriptions and notifications, and
member profiles).
It has always been our intention to share lessons learned from Race to
the Top grantees with all States. In this first year of
implementation, we believe we have appropriately focused our efforts
on helping the Race to the Top grantee States make progress in
achieving their goals and objectives. As your report notes, we are
using a combination of technical assistance strategies, including
communities of practice, that bring the grantee States together with
experts in the field in order to collaborate on topics of common
interest, such as the development of new teacher and leader evaluation
systems. We plan to make the resources and lessons learned from these
communities of practice, which are currently in the development stage,
available to all States. In addition, we plan to bring all States
together in annual meetings to help support their work implementing
reforms in the areas of adopting college- and career-ready standards,
building data systems to support instruction, increasing teacher
effectiveness and achieving equity in teacher distribution, and
turning around our lowest achieving schools. However, we do not intend
to provide non-grantees with access to the secure grantee Web site or
the communities of practice, at least in this initial development and
implementation phase. With forethought, we determined that it was
important for grantees to be able to share information and work
together on common problems, before we open up the community to all
States. Therefore, while we agree with your second recommendation to
"provide non-grantee states with access to existing tools to receive
information," we respectfully disagree that such tools should include
access to the secure grantee Web site and communities of practice at
this time. Of course, the Department will continue to provide all
States and local educational agencies with valuable technical
assistance opportunities that focus on a variety of topics, including
topics related to implementing educational reforms that improve the
quality of education for all students. For example, the Department
recently completed a series of four regional conferences for school,
district, and State leaders who are working to turn around their
lowest-performing schools.
Aside from these responses to the report's recommendations, there are
three discussions in the report that we believe would benefit from
more clarity. We discuss each of these areas below. In addition, we
are enclosing a list of suggested technical edits (see Enclosure B).
Description of the program review process. We appreciate that the
report highlights that our monitoring plan for States "emphasizes
program outcomes and quality of implementation, while also ensuring
compliance with RTT program requirements." However, we believe that
the authors of the draft report may have been confused about the
actions taken by a State versus a district in the review process. For
your consideration and convenience, we have enclosed a suggested
revised version of the paragraph under the heading, "Education Has
Begun to Monitor State Implementation of RTT-Funded Activities," which
we believe clarifies and more accurately describes our program review
process (see Enclosure C). Our edits to this paragraph are provided in
tracked changes.
Description of the implementation delays. The draft report describes
the variety of challenges that States faced in implementing their
large and comprehensive reform plans. We agree that delays in State
implementation resulted for a variety of reasons, including
difficulties States had in hiring qualified personnel and addressing
State procedures for issuing Requests for Proposals and awarding
contracts. However, we do not agree that the Department's
establishment of the Implementation and Support Unit (ISU) contributed
to the delay. The administrative processes required to establish this
new unit to assist States in implementing Race to the Top and other
Recovery Act grants were managed by staff who were not involved in the
day-to-day work of the Race to the Top program. The ongoing work of
our program officers and technical assistance staff and contractors
continued uninterrupted, and no delay was caused by the establishment
of the ISU.
In addition, although the report contends that States have been "slow"
to draw down their grant funds, it is not clear to us that the rate of
draw-downs in this program is slow. Given that this is the first year
of a unique discretionary grant program with awards of unprecedented
size, we do not have a basis on which to judge the rate of draw-downs
as being slow or fast. It is also important to note that if grantees
have obligated funds for contracts, these obligations might not be
reflected in the draw-down data in Table 3 of the report. As
contractors provide services and payments for contracted services are
provided, the expenditure of these funds will be reflected in the draw-
down data. We are carefully monitoring grantees' progress toward
meeting their goals and ensuring that funds are properly used, and we
do not believe that rates of drawing down funds are a reliable
indicator of progress.
Example of how funds are being used. In the "GAO Highlights" section
of the report, under the heading, "What GAO found," the report
provides "professional development" as an example of a way that Race
to the Top funds will be used to increase the effectiveness of
teachers and leaders. We believe that a better example would be
"developing systems to evaluate and improve teacher and principal
effectiveness." Professional development is only a part of the systems
that States are developing to evaluate and improve teacher and
principal effectiveness, and we believe that using "professional
development" as the example will lead some to conclude that the
Department's or the States' main strategy for increasing the
effectiveness of teachers and principals is professional development
in isolation, which is clearly not the case.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss
our comments. We look forward to receiving the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Ann Whalen:
Director, Policy and Program Implementation:
Signed by:
Joseph Conaty:
Acting Director, Technical Assistance and Support:
Enclosures:
Enclosure A: Community of Practice (CoP) Webinars, Conference Calls,
and Meetings;
Enclosure B: Suggested Technical Edits;
Enclosure C: Track Changes of Program Review Paragraph;
Enclosure D: Updated Information for Table 3.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Elizabeth Morrison, Assistant Director, and Jason Palmer, Analyst-in-
Charge, managed this assignment and made significant contributions to
all aspects of this report. Jaime Allentuck, Corissa Kiyan, and
Rebecca Rose also made significant contributions. Additionally, James
E. Bennett, Alexander G. Galuten, Bryon Gordon, Kirsten B. Lauber,
Steven R. Putansu, Kathleen van Gelder, and Sarah Wood aided in this
assignment.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Department of Education:
Department of Education: Improved Oversight and Controls Could Help
Education Better Respond to Evolving Priorities. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-194]. Washington, D.C.: February
10, 2011.
Grant Monitoring: Department of Education Could Improve Its Processes
with Greater Focus on Assessing Risks, Acquiring Financial Skills, and
Sharing Information. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-57]. Washington, D.C.: November 19,
2009.
Student Achievement: Schools Use Multiple Strategies to Help Students
Meet Academic Standards, Especially Schools with Higher Proportions of
Low-Income and Minority Students. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-18]. Washington, D.C.: November 16,
2009.
No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of
Education's Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-911]. Washington, D.C.:
September 24, 2009.
Teacher Quality: Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education
Programs Could Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-593]. Washington, D.C.:
July 6, 2009.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-734]. Washington D.C.: September
30, 2004.
Recovery Act:
Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen
Accountability over States' and Localities' Uses of Funds. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-999]. Washington, D.C.: September
20, 2010.
Recovery Act: One Year Later, States' and Localities' Uses of Funds
and Opportunities to Strengthen Accountability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-437]. Washington, D.C.: March 3,
2010.
Recovery Act: Status of States' and Localities' Use of Funds and
Efforts to Ensure Accountability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-231]. Washington, D.C.: December
10, 2009.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 111-5, §14006, 123 Stat. 115, 283.
[2] Pub. L. No. 111-5, §14009, 123 Stat. 115, 285 (2009). The mandate
requires GAO to evaluate the programs under sections 14006 and 14007
of the Recovery Act. These programs include not only the RTT grant
fund, which is the subject of this report, but also the RTT Assessment
Program (a separate grant fund created by Education) and the
Innovation fund. GAO plans to evaluate these additional programs in
the future.
[3] Throughout this report, we identify the District of Columbia as a
state.
[4] We use the term school districts to refer to local educational
agencies.
[5] In the Recovery Act, Congress authorized funds for the RTT and
Investing in Innovation grant funds. Grants awarded through the RTT
and two related programs (the RTT Assessment Program and the Investing
in Innovation funds) total almost $5 billion, to be spent over
multiple years. Appendix II provides a description of these grant
programs and a summary of their award amounts. By comparison, the
federal government spent about $48 billion on K-12 education programs
in the 2007-2008 school year alone (the most recent data available).
[6] Within grantee states, school districts that are not receiving RTT
grants may work with the state to implement specific portions of the
RTT plan that are being implemented statewide, such as academic
content standards. States vary in terms of the proportion of their
districts that are receiving RTT funds. In Delaware and Tennessee, all
school districts are receiving RTT funds, compared with 86 percent of
school districts in New York and about half of the districts in Ohio.
[7] Pub. L. No. 111-5, §14006(c), 123 Stat. 115, 284 (2009).
[8] For a discussion of the criteria, see 74 Fed. Reg. 59,688 (Nov.
18, 2009).
[9] The proposed requirements can be found in 74 Fed. Reg. 37,804
(July 29, 2009). The final requirements and notice inviting
applications can be found in 74 Fed. Reg. 59,688 and 59,836 (Nov. 18,
2009), respectively.
[10] The Recovery Act provided $53.6 billion (including funds for RTT
grants) in appropriations for SFSF to be administered by Education.
The act specifies that most of the funds were to be distributed to
states to support education programs. To receive SFSF awards, each
state had to assure it would, among other things, maintain state
support for education at least at 2006 levels and make progress in the
same four areas of education reform emphasized under the RTT program.
[11] At Education's invitation, over 1,500 prospective reviewers
applied or were nominated to review RTT applications, and Education
ultimately chose 58 reviewers. Education's Inspector General conducted
a review of Education's process for screening and selecting external
reviewers of Phase 1 RTT applications. The report found that the
department's process was generally appropriate but recommended the
department improve the timeliness with which it verifies eligibility
of reviewers in order to ensure the integrity of the review process.
See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, The
Department's Process for Screening and Selecting Peer Reviewers for
the Race to the Top Grant Program (August 2010). ED-OIG/A19K0006.
[12] For example, in 2009, 49 states and territories joined the Common
Core State Standards Initiative. This effort, led by the states
through the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National
Governors Association, established a single set of academic standards
for English-language arts and mathematics that states can voluntarily
adopt and share.
[13] The 25 states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
[14] Through the Teacher Incentive Fund, Education awards competitive
grants to states and school districts to support efforts to develop
and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation
systems in high-need schools.
[15] The Recovery Act required states to use at least 50 percent of
their RTT grants to make subgrants to school districts based on the
district's relative share of ESEA Title I, Part A allocations for the
most recent year. Approximately 2,000 school districts in the 12 RTT
grantee states are participating in their state's RTT plan and will
receive subgrants.
[16] Through its Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program,
Education awards competitive grants to states to develop data systems
that track student progress over time, based on individual student
records.
[17] States included some activities, such as professional
development, in more than one reform area. We report the
implementation of activities consistent with how states organized them
in their RTT applications.
[18] Instructional improvement systems are technology-based tools and
other strategies that provide teachers, principals, and administrators
with support and data to manage continuous instructional improvement.
These systems include activities such as instructional planning and
using information for instructional decision-making. They may also
incorporate other types of data, such as attendance, discipline, and
grades. For more information on instructional improvement systems, see
74 Fed. Reg. 59,688, 59,805 (Nov. 18, 2009).
[19] Under ESEA, as amended, schools that do not make adequate yearly
progress--a measure in the ESEA used to determine whether schools have
met state academic proficiency targets--in 5 consecutive years must
implement one of a variety of school turnaround models.
[20] Florida is a member of the Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness of College and Careers, which received a grant through the
RTT Assessment Program to develop advanced assessment systems aligned
with the Common Core State Standards. These assessments will be ready
for states to administer by the 2014-2015 school year, according to
current timelines.
[21] As part of their RTT applications, states had to identify
specific projects through which they would implement their reforms.
From the four states we visited, we selected 29 projects--based on the
amount of funding planned for the project and to ensure variation
across the four reform areas--for more in-depth review.
[22] Education created a process to review states' requests to make
changes to their plans by submitting amendment requests to revise
goals, activities, timelines, budgets, or annual targets. Although
Education allows states to change specific parts of their plans, the
overall scope and objectives of states' approved plans cannot be
changed.
[23] State grant funds remain in the U.S. Treasury, and states receive
their funds by submitting electronic fund transfer requests known as
drawdowns.
[24] Indirect costs represent the expenses of doing business that are
not readily identified with a particular grant project function or
activity, but are necessary for the general operation of the
organization and the conduct of activities it performs. For example,
indirect costs may include maintenance and operations of space, data
processing, and communications.
[25] School Improvement Grants, authorized under section 1003(g) of
the ESEA, as amended, are grants made by Education to improve student
achievement in Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring so as to enable those schools to make
adequate yearly progress and no longer be identified for improvement.
The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2010, provided around
$546 million for School Improvement Grants in fiscal year 2010.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: