This is the fourth in a series of profiles of innovative leaders in government based on interviews for the book “Paths to Making a Difference: Leading in Government” by Paul R. Lawrence and Mark A. Abramson. The book highlights the management lessons of 24 political executives during their first two years in the Obama administration.
Undertaking innovation in government is a challenge. Government leaders must work with their existing tool kit, primarily grants and contracts, to bring about their desired results. It is rare that Congress gives government new authorities and a new portfolio of tools. (One exception is the creation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy in the Department of Energy).
Thus, government must be creative in using the tools already on the books. A recent article in this series focused on the how the Department of Veterans Affairs was using the tools of government which they already had their disposal.
At the Department of Education, the Obama Administration used one of government’s oldest tools – the 19th century grant-in-aid – to accomplish 21st century objectives. Under the leadership of Secretary Arne Duncan and Deputy Secretary Anthony Miller (pictured above), the department focused on one its primary goals: dramatically improving educational performance in all 50 states.
Given the budget of the department (it accounts for only 10% of total national spending on education, with the remaining 90% coming from state and local governments) and its limited leverage over state and local education institutions, the department had to be creative in developing new approaches which would encourage movement toward reforming schools and improving educational performance across the nation.
The new approach was to create a nationwide competition among the states to receive new funding authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In order to compete for the funds, each state had to develop a plan which set forth their educational reform goals and targets.
Many grants program have been allocated by formula across all 50 states. In contrast, Race to the Top created a competition in which the states with the highest ranked plans received funding.
Deputy Secretary Miller recalls, “The program invited and challenged states to approach education reform systematically. In the first two rounds, 46 states applied, which demonstrated the widespread interest and appetite to do things differently, and dramatically improve education.”
Each state was required to develop a reform plan which includes activities in the following areas:
- Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
- Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
- Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
- Turning around the lowest-achieving schools.
To date, there have been 19 winners (two in Phase One, 10 in Phase Two, and seven in Phase Three). One innovative feature about the Race to the Top approach is that both “winners” and “non-winners” developed state plans which set forth their reforms agenda. That is, through the competitions, 46 states began working on the reform agenda of the Department of Education.
“Many of these states-not just the winners-are pursuing at least pieces of their reform plans,” Miller reports. So the department’s objective of educational reform is being achieved in both the states which received funding and those states which did not receive federal funds.
Secretary Duncan emphasizes this aspect of the program, “Each of the states (which applied) now has in place – win or lose – a blueprint of how they would like to move forward, statewide, on education reform.”
A second innovative feature of the Race to the Top program is its emphasis on outcomes.
“Race to the Top continues the movement toward performance based measures,” says Timothy J. Conlan, Professor of Government and Politics at George Mason University. “In the past, grant requirements have focused on procedures and outputs. Race to the Top focuses on outcomes, not outputs.”
_________________________________________________________
Previous “Innovation in Government” profiles in this series:
Creating VA’s Innovation Initiative
Creating The ‘Know Your Farmer’ Program
Creating The ‘Every Day Counts’ Program
_________________________________________________________
The Race to the Top “competition” model is now being replicated. In 2011, nine states (from the 35 states which prepared plans) received Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge awards to build statewide systems of high quality early learning and development programs for low-income children from birth to age five (the Challenge is jointly administered by the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services).
In 2012, the next five highest ranked states from the 2011 competition were invited to reapply to receive funding for early learning programs. In describing the model, Deputy Secretary Miller says, “Race to the Top is a good example of how our Department is working to transform from a bureaucratic agency to an engine of innovation, partnering with states to support their leaders in working together to produce real change that puts students first.”
The 2013 Education budget contains plans to use the Race to the Top competition model to tackle the issue of college costs and quality by encouraging shared responsibility among states, families, and the federal government. Under the plan, the Education Department would invest $1 billion for a new Race to the Top focusing on college affordability and completion.
The goal of the new program is to drive reform, provide incentives to keep costs under control, and increase the number of work-study jobs. Plans are also underway to launch Race to the Top competitions at the school district level (in contrast to the previous state-level competitions). Other government departments, including the Department of Transportation, are also considering using the Race to the Top approach for their programs.
In looking back on the success of the program, Deputy Secretary Miller reflects, “Race to the Top-a competitive program who’s funding is less than half a percent of total K-12 spending-has done more to advance systemic education reform than any other program in the Department’s history.”
In addition, Race to the Top exemplifies a new approach to the way government does business. Historically, many grants program have been allocated by formula across all 50 states. In contrast, Race to the Top created a competition in which the states with the highest ranked plans (based to a very detailed scoring process) received funding. Most importantly, states were required to state explicitly their goals and targeted outcomes.
Paul R. Lawrence is a Principal at Ernst & Young’s Government & Public Sector practice. Marc Andersen is a Principal and the leader of Ernst & Young’s Government & Public Sector practice. Mark A. Abramson is President, Leadership Inc.
Photo Credit: Suzanne Glassman