Education awarded RTT grants in three phases. Twelve states received  grants in 2010 in Phases 1 and 2 to support the design and  implementation of their teacher and principal evaluation systems and  other RTT reforms. Reviewers evaluated the state’s plan to ensure its  participating RTT districts (1) measure student growth for each individual  student; (2) design and implement evaluation systems, developed with  teacher and principal involvement, that include multiple rating categories  that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor; (3)  evaluate teachers and principals annually and provide feedback, including  student growth data; and (4) use these evaluations to inform decisions  regarding professional development, compensation, promotion, retention,  tenure, and certification. Education also provided examples of these supplemental measures, such  as multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance and  high school graduation rates as a measure for evaluating principals. Six of 12 RTT States Fully Implemented Their Evaluation Systems by the 2012-13 School Year

According to state officials, 6 of the 12 RTT states fully implemented both  their teacher and principal evaluation systems by school year (SY) 2012- 13 (see fig. 2), though their success in meeting their original target date  for implementation varied. The six states that did not fully implement both their teacher and principal  evaluation systems in SY 2012-13 either piloted or partially implemented  evaluation systems, according to state officials (see fig. Among the four districts we  visited in Maryland, district officials said the percentage of teachers who  participated in the districts’ pilots ranged from about 4 percent to 100   State or district officials in four of the six states expressed  percent.some concerns about their readiness for full implementation. Most RTT States Cited Challenges with Developing and Using Certain Evaluation Measures, Addressing Teacher Concerns, and Building Capacity and Sustainability

		RTT States Struggled to Develop and Use Student Learning Objectives and Assess Teacher Professional Practice Consistently

State or district officials in most RTT states (8 of the 12) said they had  difficulty developing and using student learning objectives (SLOs) to  assess student academic growth for teachers. Some RTT state and district officials said it was difficult to ensure that  principals assess teacher professional practice consistently. Concerns about Magnitude of Change Challenged States’ Efforts

State or district officials in 11 of the 12 RTT states discussed the difficulty  of addressing teacher concerns about the scale of evaluation reform. Education Supports RTT State Implementation Efforts through Monitoring and Technical Assistance

		Education Monitors States Using a New Process to Hold Them Accountable for Quality of Implementation

Education developed a new process to monitor RTT states’ progress  toward meeting their RTT goals, including those related to teacher and  principal evaluation systems. Education officials said that the RTT  monitoring process differs from the department’s other monitoring efforts  in that Education has more frequent contact with the states in order to  identify and address implementation challenges. Officials from 8 of the 12 RTT states expressed generally positive views  about Education’s RTT monitoring activities. To ensure that states are held accountable for meeting their RTT goals  for teacher and principal evaluation systems, Education may take the  following corrective actions for states that have not demonstrated  adequate progress in implementing their systems:
Conditional amendment approval. High-risk status. Officials from 10 of the 12 RTT states told us that Education’s technical  assistance related to teacher and principal evaluation systems was  generally helpful, and officials in several states said assistance had  improved since the start of the contract. Education Plans to Provide RTT States and Nongrantees Additional Information to Support State Efforts

Education plans to provide information to RTT states on sustaining  teacher and principal evaluation systems and other reforms, but  Education officials said they have not yet done so. In addition, Education obtained information on state sustainability  strategies through RTT applications. student academic growth data. Race to the Top: Characteristics of Grantees’ Amended Programs and  Education’s Review Process. GAO-10-57.
Why GAO Did This Study

Education created RTT under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to provide incentives for states to reform K-12 education in areas such as improving the lowest performing schools and developing effective teachers and leaders. In 2010, Education awarded 12 states nearly $4 billion in RTT grant funds to spend over 4 years. A state's RTT application and scope of work included the state's plans for development and implementation of teacher and principal evaluation systems by participating school districts. These systems assess teacher and principal effectiveness based on student academic growth and other measures, such as observation of professional practice. Currently, additional states are designing and implementing similar evaluation systems.
GAO was asked to review RTT teacher and principal evaluation systems. This report examines (1) the extent to which the 2010 grantee states have implemented their teacher and principal evaluation systems, (2) the challenges the grantee states have faced in designing and implementing these systems, and (3) how Education has helped grantee states meet their RTT objectives for teacher and principal evaluation systems.
GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; analyzed RTT applications and documentation on each state's guidelines for their evaluation systems; and interviewed officials from all 12 states, selected districts, and Education.

What GAO Found

By school year 2012-13, 6 of 12 Race to The Top (RTT) states fully implemented their evaluation systems (i.e., for all teachers and principals in all RTT districts). However, their success in fully implementing by the date targeted in their RTT applications varied. Three of these states met their target date while three did not for various reasons, such as needing more time to develop student academic growth measures. The six states that did not fully implement either piloted or partially implemented. The scope of pilots varied. One state piloted to about 14 percent of teachers and principals while another piloted to about 30 percent of teachers. State or district officials in four of the six states expressed some concerns about their readiness for full implementation.
Officials in most RTT states cited challenges related to developing and using evaluation measures, addressing teacher concerns, and building capacity and sustainability. State officials said it was difficult to design and implement rigorous student learning objectives--an alternate measure of student academic growth. In 6 states, officials said they had difficulty ensuring that principals conducted evaluations consistently. Officials in 11 states said teacher concerns about the scale of change, such as the use of student academic growth data and consequences attached to evaluations, challenged state efforts. State and district officials also discussed capacity challenges, such as too few staff or limited staff expertise and prioritizing evaluation reform amid multiple educational initiatives. Officials in 10 states had concerns about sustaining their evaluation systems.
Education helps RTT states meet their goals for teacher and principal evaluation systems through a new monitoring process and through technical assistance. Education officials said the RTT monitoring process differs from other monitoring efforts in the frequency of contact with the states and the emphasis on continuous improvement and quality of RTT reforms. Officials from 8 of the 12 RTT states expressed generally positive views about Education's monitoring. When states have not demonstrated adequate progress, Education has taken corrective action. For example, Education designated two states as high-risk, which resulted in additional monitoring. Education provides technical assistance through a contractor; officials from 10 RTT states told us assistance related to evaluation systems was generally helpful. Education officials said they plan to provide RTT and nongrantee states with more information to support their efforts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations in this report.