GAO Report Reveals Wide Variation in State Implementation of School Improvement Grants

Since the Obama administration reshaped the School Improvement Grant program, it’s been hard to pin down what exactly states and schools are doing with the funds. The program, which received an infusion of $3 billion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, provides funds that states award to school districts to support school turnaround efforts. Though the new program is more prescriptive than it previously was, the Department of Education allowed states considerable flexibility in structuring how local school districts apply for and receive funds. A recent GAO report seeks to bring some clarity to this issue through case studies in six states on the early stages of the School Improvement Grant (SIG) process. The report reveals one common theme: Every state did things differently, likely leading to dramatically different results.

While some states awarded SIG funds to every eligible school that applied, other states awarded funds more selectively, based on district capacity to implement reforms and the degree to which districts submitted innovative proposals. This means that schools in some states received larger grants, on average, than schools in other states because fewer schools received awards over all. It also means that schools in states that were selective may be more likely to succeed in improving student outcomes because those schools were already more prepared to do so.

Similarly, some states implemented strong oversight of and assistance to recipient schools and required schools to partner with external providers, while others did not. For example, Ohio brought in experts to work directly with schools, while Rhode Island relied primarily on U.S. Department of Education (ED) guidance to assist schools. For most states, the decision was made based on funding and capacity – states with more resources were able to provide recipients with more support. This inconsistency could also put schools at an advantage in states with more thorough oversight given that they have a more complete support system.

However the report finds that the states did face some common challenges implementing the SIG funds. For example, states found that schools in rural areas faced hurdles even when selecting a school reform model. In many cases, rural schools could not choose the Closure model (one of the four reform models schools can choose to implement using the funds) because there were no other local schools for students to attend instead and could not choose the Restart model, which requires schools to reopen as a charter school, because there were no local charter operators. Schools in rural areas also had problems implementing reforms due to lack of capacity, including the ability to attract highly-qualified teachers.

The GAO also found that states struggled with the timing of the grant application process and the resulting short implementation time-frame for turnaround efforts. Many states suggested that ED did not approve their applications in a timely enough manner to allow them sufficient time to create and implement the district application process. As a result, school districts had to apply to states over Summer of 2010 so that they could start their interventions programs by Fall of 2010. Similarly, recipient schools did not feel that they had ample time to plan for their turnaround process. This meant that some schools missed state deadlines to hire or fire teachers or even had to delay implementation by a full year.

It comes as no surprise that states varied widely in how they structured grant competitions for SIG funds. However, it is clear that this variation, coupled with a host of challenges both states and schools faced, will likely undermine the effectiveness of the SIG program in many states. Though the ED will continue to monitor progress at the state and school level, it should also take these challenges into consideration as it implements future rounds of the SIG program. Though SIG is unlikely to get another $3 billion infusion, Congress has continually appropriated more than half of a billion dollars to the program. Similarly, the ED should collect best practices from states with high success rates and share them with other states. By creating a formal channel through which states can share best practices (i.e. community of practice) in the school turnaround process that spans the nation, ED may be able to bolster the effectiveness of the School Improvement Grant program.