GAO-12-228R 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

December 8, 2011 

The Honorable John P. Kline 

Chairman 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Martha Roby 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Race to the Top: Characteristics of Grantees’ Amended Programs and Education’s 

Review Process 

The U.S. Department of Education (Education) established the Race to the Top (RTT) grant 

fund to encourage states to support school reform efforts. In 2010, Education awarded 12 

RTT grants totaling nearly $4 billion, making RTT the largest competitive grant fund ever 

administered by Education. Individual grantee awards ranged from $75 million to 

approximately $700 million.1

 The size of each grantee’s award was based in part on its 

population, among other factors, and each grantee has 4 years to use grant funds. We 

recently reported on grantees’ plans to implement a variety of school reform efforts and how 

Education has provided extensive support to states.2

 Our report also discussed 

implementation challenges with RTT. Specifically, we reported that grantees have had 

difficulty finding and hiring qualified personnel to run their grant-funded activities, have 

encountered difficulty complying with state procedures for awarding contracts, and that 

Education took more time than anticipated to review grantees' RTT implementation plans. 

Moreover, the 12 RTT grantees requested amendments to their approved proposals. In an 

effort to ensure that states are held accountable for the terms of their awards, you asked us 

to provide information on the following questions: 

(1) What amendments have grantees requested to their RTT plans, and what reasons have 

grantees given for their amendment requests, particularly those that significantly changed 

projects, project timelines, or budgets? 

(2) What process has Education established to review and approve grantees’ requests for 

amendments to their RTT plans? 

 

1

 Grantees included Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. 

2

 GAO, Race to the Top: Reform Efforts Are Under Way and Information Sharing Could Be Improved, 

GAO-11-658 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011). 
Page 2 GAO-12-228R

To describe the types of and reasons for the amendments that grantees made to their RTT 

plans, we reviewed the 37 RTT amendment decision letters issued by Education through 

August 31, 2011. We compared the amended activities described in the decision letters with 

the activities outlined in the grantees’ approved applications and budgets. We also 

interviewed Education officials about the reasons that grantees requested amendments as 

well as Education’s rationale for approving the requests. To describe Education’s process to 

review and approve RTT amendments, we examined Education’s legal authority to approve 

amendments to its discretionary grant proposals and interviewed Education officials about 

the implementation of the department’s process.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 through December 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 on our audit objectives. 

In summary, we found that

• According to Education officials, most amendments consisted of minor adjustments to 

grant budgets, activities, and timelines, and some amendments involved significant 

changes to the grant award. Grantees have cited a variety of reasons for these 

amendments, such as timeline delays and difficulty finding qualified staff. 

• Education established a review process in which Education officials consider 

amendment requests on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the department distinguishes 

significant amendment requests from minor requests based on how the amendment 

would change project timelines, budgets, performance measures, and the 

implementation of other related projects. Education reportedly applied greater scrutiny to 

requests that involved significant changes to grantees’ planned activities, often by 

requiring that grantees provide additional information or seek consultation from issuearea experts within the department. Rather than reject amendment requests, Education 

officials explained that they generally asked grantees to resubmit requests with more 

information.

Background

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

(SFSF), Congress required Education to make grants to states that reform their education 

systems.3 To implement this requirement, Education established the $4 billion RTT 

competitive grant fund to encourage states to reform their elementary and secondary 

education systems (K-12) and to reward states that have improved student outcomes, such 

as high school graduation rates. RTT provides incentives for reform across multiple areas of 

K-12 education, including reforms related to developing effective teachers and leaders, 

improving the lowest-achieving schools, expanding student data systems, and enhancing 

standards and assessments. In 2011, Congress provided funds for additional RTT grants. 

Specifically, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, 

provided up to $700 million for the Race to the Top Fund.4

 

3 Pub. L. No. 111-5, §14006, 123 Stat. 115, 283.

On May 25, 2011, Education

announced that approximately $500 million of these funds would support the new Race to 

the Top Early Learning Challenge program and that approximately $200 million would be 

made available to some or all of the nine unfunded finalists from the 2010 RTT competition.

4 Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1832(a)(2), 125 Stat. 38, 163. 
Page 3 GAO-12-228R

Under Education’s regulations, grantees are required to obtain the department’s prior 

approval before making programmatic changes, such as revising the scope or objectives of 

the project.5 However, these regulations allow grantees to make certain changes without 

prior approval. For example, grantees can generally transfer up to 10 percent of funds from 

one grant activity to another without Education’s approval.6

In addition to the general rules that typically govern grantees’ requests for amendments, 

Education provided specific guidance to RTT grantees on the circumstances for and types 

of allowable amendment requests for the program. According to this guidance, an RTT 

grantee must submit an amendment request for (1) a proposed revision that constitutes a 

substantial change in activities from the approved grant project, regardless of budgetary 

impact; (2) budgetary changes, including transfers among categories or programs, that 

exceed $500,000 of the current approved budget; or (3) changes to the list of local 

educational agencies (LEAs) participating with the grantee’s RTT plan. The department will 

not consider amendment requests that would change the overall scope and objectives of the 

approved proposal, fail to comply with the terms of the award or the statutory and regulatory 

provisions of the program, or violate the general principles of the RTT program.

Education officials told us that 

almost every discretionary grant program within the department has a process by which 

grantees can request revisions or amendments to their grant awards. 

7 As part of 

the request, a grantee must include several key pieces of information. In particular, the 

request must include the grant area that would be affected by the proposed change, a 

description of the change, and the rationale for making the change. It must also include a 

description of how the proposed change aligns with RTT principles, the impact of that 

change on any performance measures or outcomes, budget documentation, and relevant 

official signatures.8 The department requires both Education and the grantee to mutually 

agree in writing to the changes. 

Grantees Made Both Minor and Significant Amendments to Their RTT Plans, Citing a 

Variety of Reasons

In general, amendments approved as of August 31, 2011, were for minor changes to project 

timelines, activities, and budgets, according to Education officials. For example, 

• The District of Columbia delayed the start date by 6 months for a project that delivers 

training to teachers on new academic standards, while still maintaining the original end 

date. The District of Columbia requested the delay because it needed additional time to 

 

5 34 C.F.R. § 80.30.

6 Although Education’s regulations generally permit grantees to transfer up to 10 percent of funds 

from one grant activity to another without prior approval from the department, the regulations also 

allow Education to waive the approval requirement for those grantees transferring more than 10 

percent. Education officials told us that they originally chose to set the budgetary threshold at 

$100,000 (as opposed to 10 percent) for RTT because of the high dollar amount of each grant and 

the high-profile nature of the grant program. However, in October 2011, Education relaxed that

budgetary threshold to $500,000 in response to grantee concerns about administrative burden. 7 Education established several principles to determine whether a proposed change is still consistent 

with the overall purpose of the RTT grant program. According to these principles, amended activities 

must, among other things, continue to (1) support increases in student outcomes such as high school 

graduation rates and workforce success; (2) make progress on or meet annual performance targets; 

(3) support a comprehensive reform platform in all reform areas of the grant; (4) maintain LEA 

participation, particularly LEAs with high numbers of disadvantaged students; and (5) use and monitor 

funds responsibly.

8 Until Education updated its amendment submission guidance in October 2011, grantees were not 

specifically required to include the rationale for making the request or a description of how the 

amended activity would align with RTT principles in the request submission. 
Page 4 GAO-12-228R

develop training materials for the new standards and to contract with a vendor to deliver 

training on those standards. 

• Florida changed the type of organization that administers an RTT subgrant. Florida 

officials decided to contract directly with community-based organizations rather than with 

LEAs as originally planned. These organizations will provide volunteers from local 

businesses to work in the state’s lowest-achieving schools and to arrange business 

shadowing opportunities for students, among other things. 

• North Carolina reallocated savings from a project aimed at improving the state’s lowestachieving schools. North Carolina had fewer schools that qualified as lowest-achieving 

than when it applied for RTT, so the state reduced project budgets to reflect the smaller 

number of schools and redirected those funds to a new pilot project. The new pilot 

project provides retention bonuses for staff in the state’s lowest-achieving schools.

In contrast, some approved amendments significantly changed project timelines or budgets.

Grantees requested those changes for a variety of reasons, including timeline delays and 

difficulty finding qualified staff. Examples of and reasons for significant amendments are as 

follows: 

• Massachusetts delayed time frames to develop parts of the state’s data systems that are 

used to support instruction by 1 year because of difficulties finding qualified staff and 

coordinating RTT funds with other federal funds. Massachusetts reported having 

difficulty finding staff qualified to manage its data projects at the salary levels available 

through the state human resources system. In previous work, Massachusetts officials 

told us that they did not have the staff to administer their planned data projects and 

would rely on hiring contract staff with RTT funds.9 Massachusetts officials also

explained that they leveraged funding from other federal grants to build the state’s 

longitudinal data system,10 and that they encountered difficulty establishing contracts for 

those grants, which delayed timelines for related RTT projects.11

• New York requested to reduce an assessment project from $41.5 million to $20 million, 

because the state received funding from another federal grant for English and 

mathematics assessments. When New York submitted its RTT application, the state did 

not know whether its assessment projects would be funded as part of a separate federal 

grant competition.

Although Education 

approved Massachusetts’ request to delay time frames, the department is requiring 

Massachusetts to provide additional information to program officers in order to better 

track the state’s progress on its data systems. 

12

 

9 GAO-11-658.

During the RTT application process, Education officials advised 

applicants not to assume funding from other federal discretionary grants that were not 

yet awarded. New York plans to use the $20 million remaining in this project to develop 

science and social studies assessments. In addition, New York plans to use the $21.5 

10 Longitudinal data systems track individual student progress over time, based on student records.

The systems are intended to enhance the ability of states to efficiently and accurately manage, 

analyze, and use education data and to make data-driven decisions to improve student learning, as 

well as facilitate research to increase student achievement and close achievement gaps.

Massachusetts has received two Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grants, which are competitive 

grants that Education awards to states to develop data systems that track student progress over time, 

based on individual student records. 11 Massachusetts officials told us that the new parts of the state longitudinal data system funded with 

other federal grants laid the foundation for the work funded with RTT.

12 In September 2010, Education awarded Race to the Top Assessment Program grants to two 

consortia of states to develop advanced academic assessment systems. New York was a member of 

one of the winning consortia.
Page 5 GAO-12-228R

million as follows: $18.3 million to develop curriculum resources for grades 

prekindergarten through 12 and $3.2 million for a pilot program to assess the quality of 

early learning programs in high-need communities.

• Georgia submitted an amendment request to delay timelines by 1 to 2 years for at least 

28 activities because of errors in its approved RTT application and a transition in state 

leadership. According to Education, Georgia had not completely updated project 

timelines that it included in its application for an earlier round of the RTT grant 

competition. Also, shortly after receiving the RTT grant, the state elected a new governor 

and a new state superintendent of education, who, according to Georgia officials, 

needed more time to review the RTT plan. As a result, Georgia pushed back deadlines 

for some of its projects, such as its longitudinal data system, teacher evaluation system, 

and alternative licensure paths for principals. In its decision letter, Education officials 

approved these amendments, stating that they were confident that Georgia would meet 

its grant objectives within the grant period despite these interim delays. 

Education Established a Review Process That Applies Greater Scrutiny to More 

Complex Amendment Requests 

Education uses a two-tiered strategy to review and approve RTT amendment requests on a 

case-by-case basis. Since the grants were awarded, the department has tracked grantee 

activities and challenges by assigning a program officer to each grantee, communicating 

with grantees via monthly phone calls, reviewing their monthly progress reports, and 

reviewing other documentation, such as implementation plans. When appropriate, 

department program officials work closely with grantees to help them clarify the implications 

of any proposed change. Education officials told us that this ongoing communication allows 

the department to learn about potential changes to grantee proposals and to advise 

grantees on information that the department requires in order to consider and potentially 

approve such changes. Upon receiving a request for an amendment, Education officials 

categorize the request as either significant or minor based on the effect of the proposed 

amendment on RTT project timelines, project budgets, performance measures, and related 

projects.13

• If Education classifies the amendment as significant, senior managers take a more 

active role in reviewing the request by meeting with grantees or by consulting subject 

area experts within the department. For example, as part of a New York request to 

expand quality assessments of early learning programs in high-need communities, 

Education facilitated several conversations with New York officials to learn more 

about the proposed change. Education also directed New York officials to speak with 

Education experts on programs for early childhood and disadvantaged students to 

obtain advice on the proposed project. 

According to department officials, Education classifies an amendment request as 

significant if it would shift project timelines by several months or more, change activity 

budgets by several hundred thousand dollars or more, alter performance measures for the 

activity, or require changes in the implementation of related projects. Amendment requests 

that do not involve changes of such magnitude are classified as minor. Education officials 

reported providing greater scrutiny to significant requests:

• If a grantee requests an amendment that Education classifies as minor, the RTT 

program officer will consult with other program officers when appropriate, and submit 

the request to senior RTT management and the Office of the General Counsel for 

approval. 

 

13 Education officials told us that about half of the grantee submitted a request that the department 

classified as significant. 
Page 6 GAO-12-228R

According to Education officials, the department generally does not reject amendment 

requests, but rather asks grantees to resubmit the requests with more detail when needed, 

particularly when there is reasonable doubt about the proposed amendment. For example, 

as a part of its new teacher evaluation system, Delaware submitted a request to change the 

way the state would use student growth to determine which teachers to rate “highly 

effective.” In its amendment decision letter, Education stated that Delaware had not 

provided enough information about the new “highly effective” rating for the department to 

consider the request fully. Rather than reject Delaware’s amendment request, Education 

asked Delaware to resubmit the request with additional information. Specifically, Education 

asked Delaware to convene a technical advisory group to review changes to the evaluation 

system and report back to Education. As of early November 2011, Delaware had not 

resubmitted the amendment with this information. 

Further, Education placed stipulations or conditions on its approval of certain amendments.

For example, Rhode Island asked to delay the adoption of new educator certification 

regulations for approximately 3 to 7 months to allow more time for public hearings and 

comment on the regulations. Education officials agreed, but told the state that the 

department would withhold approximately $18 million in funds associated with this project if 

the state missed the new timeline. 

According to Education officials, the department tracks the changes that grantees make to 

their RTT plans, but does not quantify the number of individual amendments requested or 

approved. Most of Education’s amendment decision letters include more than one change to 

a grantee’s activities, and some letters contain many changes. However, Education officials 

explained that attempting to count the number of changes would not accurately reflect the 

grantees’ work or Education’s process to oversee that work. Specifically, Education officials 

clarified that the majority of requests were interdependent, meaning that a change in one 

activity would lead to a change in another activity. Because Education requires grantees to 

describe all activities affected by a proposed change, an amendment with a single purpose 

might appear as multiple changes in the amendment decision letter descriptions, and 

therefore trying to delineate the exact number of distinct amendments is difficult. For 

example, Tennessee reallocated savings from one project to two different projects because 

the state was able to reduce some of its contracting costs. This amendment appears as 

three changes in the decision letter since it affected three projects. Further, Education 

approved Ohio’s amendment request to push back timelines for a few months for over 40 

individual activities because the state received its full RTT award several months later than 

anticipated.14

Agency Comments 

Although there is a single reason for the amendment request, the decision 

letter includes descriptions of 40 separate changes. 

We provided a draft of this letter to Education for review and comment. In addition to 

providing technical comments, Education said we should improve our description of the RTT 

grant program and clarify the case-by-case nature of its amendment review process. We 

have incorporated these comments as appropriate, and Education’s comments have been 

reprinted in the enclosure.

_________________

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, 

we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send 

 

14 Education gave each RTT grantee access to its full grant award once the department approved the 

grantee’s implementation plan. Prior to the approval, the grantee was able to access part of the total 

award. According to Education, Ohio procurement law prohibits the state from beginning work on a 

grant project until it receives the full award.
Page 7 GAO-12-228R

copies to appropriate congressional committees and the Department of Education. This 

letter also will be available on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff 

have any questions concerning 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 correspondence. Key contributors to this report 

include Elizabeth Morrison, Rebecca Rose, and Jason Palmer. In addition, Susan Bernstein 

provided writing assistance, Sheila McCoy and Alexander G. Galuten provided legal 

support, and Nancy Cosentino verified our findings.

George A. Scott

Director, Education Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Enclosure
Page  GAO-12-228R

Enclosure 

Comments from the Department of Education
Page 

 GAO-12-228R

(131133)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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, 

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.

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs