Our work notes the importance of screening  potential contractors before awarding contracts, as well as regular  evaluation in order to ensure contractors are providing timely and quality  services with government funds. In addition to these state level issues, many districts also struggled to  develop the necessary staff capacity to implement successful school  reforms. More specifically:  Interventions required extensive planning. Teachers and teachers’  unions were sometimes concerned about increasing student learning  time or implementing new teacher evaluations in SIG schools,  according to Education, state, and district officials. Some States Had Limited Evidence about SIG Grant Performance When Making Grant Renewal Decisions

States often had limited evidence for making decisions about whether to  renew schools’ SIG funding. However, making this assessment can involve a high degree of  subjectivity and states’ determinations were not always developed based  on extensive interaction with schools or systematic monitoring of their  implementation efforts. For example, states that told us  they were unable to use annual goals data to make renewal decisions  had originally identified these goals as a key renewal criterion in their  applications to Education. Education Does Not Require that All Contractors’ Performance Be Reviewed, and State Review Approaches Vary

Education’s monitoring protocols for the SIG program require the review  of contractors in schools using the restart model, but they do not require  review of contractors during contract performance for the other school  improvement models. Education’s Assistance and Oversight Are Supporting SIG Implementation

		Education’s Technical Assistance Was Well Received by States

Education’s guidance and technical assistance on SIG implementation  was well received by nearly all states. Most states reported that  Education’s guidance and technical assistance were helpful and many  reported they were very helpful (see fig. Education is Now Using a Risk-Based Approach to Monitor All States within 3 Years

Education’s oversight strategy is to monitor all states during the 3-year  period—starting with SY 2010-2011—in which the first cohort of schools  will receive SIG funding. For SY 2011-2012, Education officials initially selected 12 states to  conduct on-site monitoring. To maximize its oversight  resources, Education plans to conduct some limited “desk monitoring” in  five additional states in SY 2011-2012.monitoring protocol is similar to the on-site visit protocol, but—unlike the  on-site monitoring—does not include interviews with school officials. Finally, Education officials told us that they plan to monitor the remaining  states in SY 2012-2013, and that these states represent a small  percentage of SIG funds. Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that SIG grant renewal decisions serve to hold districts and  schools accountable, we recommend that the Secretary of Education  provide additional support to states about how to make evidence-based  grant renewal decisions, particularly when states do not have annual  student achievement goal information available at the time renewal  decisions are made. To ensure that contractors hired with SIG funding are accountable for  their performance, we recommend that the Secretary of Education take  steps to ensure that the performance of SIG funded contractors, including  those in turnaround and transformation schools, is reviewed during  contract performance. We agree with Education that the need for performance reviews should  be dependent on the specific role of the contractor, and we modified our  recommendation to address some of Education’s concerns. (2) How do U.S. Department of  Education (Education) and state guidance and procedures for screening  potential contractors and reviewing contractor performance compare with  leading practices? (3) To what extent are Education’s oversight and  technical assistance activities effectively supporting SIG implementation? Providing Information on Challenges to Successful SIG Implementation

To identify aspects of the SIG program that pose challenges for  successful SIG implementation, we analyzed responses to our survey of  state educational agency officials with responsibility for SIG in the 50  states and the District of Columbia. In addition, we analyzed survey  results.
Why GAO Did This Study

The School Improvement Grant (SIG) program funds reforms in low performing schools. Congress provided $3.5 billion for SIG in fiscal year 2009, and a total of about $1.6 billion was appropriated in fiscal years 2010-2012. SIG requirements changed significantly in 2010. Many schools receiving SIG funds must now use the funding for specific interventions, such as turning over certain school operations to an outside organization (contractor). GAO examined (1) what, if any, aspects of SIG pose challenges for successful implementation; (2) how Education and state guidance and procedures for screening potential contractors and reviewing contractor performance compare with leading practices; and (3) to what extent Educations technical assistance and oversight activities are effectively supporting SIG implementation. GAO surveyed SIG directors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; analyzed Education and state documents; and interviewed officials from 8 states and school districts in those states, SIG contractors, and education experts.

What GAO Found

Successful SIG implementation posed a number of challenges. Specifically, state and district officials were challenged to build staff capacity and commitment for reform, facing difficulties such as recruiting and retaining strong staff members. In addition, the SIG requirements to develop teacher evaluations and increase student learning time were difficult to implement quickly and effectively because they required extensive planning and coordination. Furthermore, states sometimes had limited evidence about the performance of SIG schools when making grant renewal decisions. For example, although Educations guidance identifies meeting annual student achievement goals as a key criterion for making renewal decisions, some states did not receive student achievement data by the time decisions had to be made. States also made decisions through qualitative assessments of schools implementation efforts, but such determinations were not always based on extensive interaction with schools or systematic monitoring. Education did not provide written guidance to states about making evidence-based grant renewal decisions after they encountered these challenges.
Districts used a significant portion of their SIG funds to hire contractors for a range of services, such as managing school operations and conducting teacher professional development. Leading practices show that screening potential contractors and then reviewing their performance are important for ensuring accountability and quality of results. Education required screening of contractors before contract awards were made. However, Education did not require review of contractors during contract performance, and states varied in whether they ensured that contractors were reviewed during the course of contract performance.
Educations assistance and oversight activities are generally supporting SIG implementation. In our survey, nearly all states reported they were satisfied with Educations technical assistance, particularly the agencys SIG guidance and conferences. In addition, many states reported that Educations guidance was timely. With respect to oversight, Education monitored 12 states in school year (SY) 2010-2011 and found deficiencies in 11 of the 12 states. Education is working with states to correct these deficiencies. For SY 2011-2012, the agency plans to use a risk-based approach to conduct on-site monitoring in 14 additional states. To maximize its oversight resources, Education also plans to conduct some limited monitoring in five additional states in SY 2011-2012. Education officials told us that they plan to monitor the remaining states in SY 2012-2013 and that these states represent a small percentage of SIG funds.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education (1) provide additional support to states about making evidence-based grant renewal decisions and (2) ensure that contractor performance is reviewed. Education generally supported our first recommendation but disagreed with the second. We modified our recommendation to address some of Educations concerns.