Race to the Top: Reform Efforts Are Under Way and Information Sharing Could Be Improved
Published: 2011-06-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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, 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. 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) 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Education Reform Areas and Application Criteria
paragraphs: 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  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. The Recovery Act requires that districts in each grantee  state must receive at least 50 percent of the state’s total grant, 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.
section_title: RTT Grant Application Process and Awards
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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. 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.
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 fig. 1 for a  timeline of key RTT grant activities to date.)
section_title: Additional Grant Requirements, Monitoring, and Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: States Reported Taking a Variety of Actions and Investing Considerable Resources to Be Competitive for Race to the Top Grants
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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. 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, 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.
section_title: Grantees Plan to Implement a Variety of Reforms and Selected Nongrantees Will Continue Some Reforms but at a Slower Pace
subsections: section_title: Grantee States Plan to Use the Largest Share of Their Funds to Increase Teacher Effectiveness
paragraphs: 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. 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, 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.
section_title: Developing Effective Teachers and Leaders
paragraphs: 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. 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 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.
section_title: Improving the Lowest- Achieving Schools
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Expanding Student Data Systems
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Enhancing Standards and Assessments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Nongrantee States Expect to Continue Implementing Some of Their Planned Reforms
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: States Reported Facing a Variety of Challenges That Have Led to Some Implementation Delays
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
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.
section_title: Education Provided Extensive Support and Is Monitoring States’ Activities, but Its Efforts to Facilitate Information Sharing Are Somewhat Limited
subsections: section_title: Education Provided Extensive Support and Guidance to States during Early Implementation
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Education Has Begun to Monitor State Implementation of RTT- Funded Activities
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Education Facilitates Information Sharing, but Grantees Want More Information, and Nongrantees Are Unaware of Plans to Share Lessons Learned
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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.
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    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.
section_title: Appendix II: Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation Grant Funds
paragraphs: The following table provides a description of RTT, RTT Assessment  Program, and the Investing in Innovation grant funds.
section_title: Appendix III: Criteria Used to Guide the Selection of States to Receive RTT Grant Awards
paragraphs: The following table provides the criteria Education identified for  application reviewers to use as part of the process to make RTT grant  awards.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Department of Education: Improved Oversight and Controls Could Help  Education Better Respond to Evolving Priorities. 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. 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. 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.  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.  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. GAO-04-734.  Washington D.C.: September 30, 2004.
subsections: section_title: Recovery Act
paragraphs: Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen  Accountability over States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds. 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. GAO-10-437. Washington,  D.C.: March 3, 2010.
Recovery Act: Status of States’ and Localities’ Use of Funds and Efforts  to Ensure Accountability. GAO-10-231. Washington, D.C.:   December 10, 2009.