Troops-To-Teachers
Program Brings More Men and Minorities to the Teaching Workforce, but Education Could Improve Management to Enhance Results Gao ID: GAO-06-265 March 1, 2006With the 2002 enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), GAO was mandated to review the Troops-to-Teachers program, which provides financial assistance and counseling to help military personnel obtain their teacher licenses, especially in priority subject areas, such as math and science, and find employment in high-need districts and schools, as well as public charter schools. The U.S. Department of Education oversees the program, which received nearly $15 million in fiscal year 2004. This report identifies (1) the number and characteristics of program participants and factors affecting participation; (2) the recruitment and retention of participants in high-need districts and priority subject areas; and (3) the steps Education has taken to facilitate program management.
The 3,875 troops who were documented as having been hired through the program between the enactment of NCLBA in 2002 and June 30, 2005--the close of the 2004-2005 school year--contributed to gender and racial diversity in the teaching workforce. Over 80 percent of Troops teachers are male and over 25 percent are African American--characteristics that differ from the new teacher population overall. However, participation has recently decreased and hiring has been geographically concentrated. The majority of the program's teachers hired from school years 2001-2002 through 2004-2005 were employed in seven states. Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, were placed in districts designated as high-need on the basis of serving children who qualify for federal assistance. About 90 percent of these funded participants continued teaching in high-need districts during their second year, and over 75 percent of the original group taught in high-need districts for a third year. About one-third of Troops hired during this period reported teaching in the priority areas of math, science, special education, or vocational education. Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but has not effectively coordinated resources with another teacher recruitment program also targeting military personnel. While Education has developed a draft work plan for Troops-to-Teachers and improved the definition of a high-need district for eligibility purposes, it has not assessed the data it uses to make high-need school determinations. Further, it disbanded a teacher policy group that once provided a forum for department managers to discuss recruitment and retention initiatives.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-265, Troops-To-Teachers: Program Brings More Men and Minorities to the Teaching Workforce, but Education Could Improve Management to Enhance Results
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-265
entitled 'Troops-To-Teachers: Program Brings More Men and Minorities to
the Teaching Workforce, but Education Could Improve Management to
Enhance Results' which was released on March 1, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2006:
Troops-To-Teachers:
Program Brings More Men and Minorities to the Teaching Workforce, but
Education Could Improve Management to Enhance Results:
GAO-06-265:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-265, a report to congressional committees:
Why GAO Did This Study:
With the 2002 enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), GAO
was mandated to review the Troops-to-Teachers program, which provides
financial assistance and counseling to help military personnel obtain
their teacher licenses, especially in priority subject areas, such as
math and science, and find employment in high-need districts and
schools, as well as public charter schools. The U.S. Department of
Education oversees the program, which received nearly $15 million in
fiscal year 2004. This report identifies (1) the number and
characteristics of program participants and factors affecting
participation; (2) the recruitment and retention of participants in
high-need districts and priority subject areas; and (3) the steps
Education has taken to facilitate program management.
What GAO Found:
The 3,875 troops who were documented as having been hired through the
program between the enactment of NCLBA in 2002 and June 30, 2005”the
close of the 2004-2005 school year”contributed to gender and racial
diversity in the teaching workforce. Over 80 percent of Troops teachers
are male and over 25 percent are African American”characteristics that
differ from the new teacher population overall. However, participation
has recently decreased and hiring has been geographically concentrated.
The majority of the program‘s teachers hired from school years
2001–2002 through 2004–2005 were employed in seven states.
Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program
between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, were placed in
districts designated as high-need on the basis of serving children who
qualify for federal assistance. About 90 percent of these funded
participants continued teaching in high-need districts during their
second year, and over 75 percent of the original group taught in high-
need districts for a third year. About one-third of Troops hired during
this period reported teaching in the priority areas of math, science,
special education, or vocational education.
Percentage of Hired Teachers Reporting Subject Areas Taught between the
Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but has
not effectively coordinated resources with another teacher recruitment
program also targeting military personnel. While Education has
developed a draft work plan for Troops-to-Teachers and improved the
definition of a high-need district for eligibility purposes, it has not
assessed the data it uses to make high-need school determinations.
Further, it disbanded a teacher policy group that once provided a forum
for department managers to discuss recruitment and retention
initiatives.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education take steps to improve
program management and better coordinate with existing teacher
recruitment and retention initiatives. Education generally agreed with
GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-265.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie Shaul at (202) 512-
7215 or ShaulM@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The 3,875 Troops Documented as Recent Hires Have Contributed to
Diversity in the Teaching Workforce, but Participation Has Recently
Decreased and Is Geographically Concentrated:
Most Funded Teachers Have Been Recruited and Retained by Districts
Designated as High-Need, and about One-Third Reported Teaching in
Priority Subject Areas:
Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Program Management but Has Not
Effectively Coordinated Program Administration with Related
Initiatives:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Financial Assistance Provided through the Troops-to-Teachers
Program:
Table 2: Definitions of High-Need Schools and High-Need Districts:
Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of Teachers from the Program Hired
between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005:
Table 4: Criteria and Data Sources Used to Support the Designation of
High-Need Schools and Districts:
Table 5: Selected Department of Education Activities to Facilitate
Entrance into the Teaching Profession:
Figures:
Figure 1: Key Legislative and Regulatory Changes in the Troops-to-
Teachers Program:
Figure 2: Number of Troops-to-Teachers Participants Hired by State,
July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2005:
Figure 3: Concentration of Troops Hired through the Program between the
Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, Relative to the Location of Major
Military Installations, by County:
Figure 4: Types of Financial Assistance Received by Program
Participants Hired between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005:
Figure 5: Percentage of Hired Teachers Reporting Subject Areas Taught
between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005:
Abbreviations:
DANTES: Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support:
DOD: Department of Defense:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 1, 2006:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Chairman:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
Approximately 3 million teachers work in public and private elementary
and secondary schools across the country, but school districts still
face difficulty recruiting and retaining highly qualified teaching
professionals. In 1992, when the shortage of math and science teachers
was increasing and the military forces were undergoing a significant
reduction in personnel, Congress authorized the Department of Defense
(DOD) to oversee a new national Troops-to-Teachers program designed to
help separated members of the military obtain their teaching
credentials and teach in school districts with large low-income
populations and a shortage of teachers in priority subject areas, such
as math and science. Since Troops-to-Teachers' inception, more than
8,400 program participants reported that they were hired as elementary
and secondary school teachers, with about half of those entering the
profession since 2002.
Funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program has varied over time. In
fiscal year 2003, the program received a $29 million appropriation,
while more recently, in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the appropriation
held steady at nearly $15 million. Each year, some funds obligated to
Troops-to-Teachers are used to provide direct financial assistance in
the form of stipends and bonuses to attract and retain participants.
Dollars not allocated toward financial assistance fund (1) the
centralized administration of the program by personnel in the Defense
Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES)--a DOD unit
that operates the program and provides members of the military with
services, such as education-related counseling and distance learning
courses--and (2) the local counseling and placement assistance that
Troops-to-Teachers' state placement assistance offices provide.
In 1999, Congress reauthorized the Troops-to-Teachers program and
transferred program oversight from DOD to the Department of Education
(Education), effective in 2000. Through a memorandum of agreement
between DOD and Education, DANTES continues daily program
administration--registering individuals, identifying high-need schools
and districts, and making determinations about who qualifies for
bonuses and stipends--while Education, rather than DOD, has
responsibility for program oversight and management. In that same year,
Congress mandated that GAO conduct an assessment of the program's
accomplishments from fiscal years 1994 through 2000. [Footnote 1] We
concluded that the main focus of the program had shifted from an
outplacement resource for separated military personnel to a recruitment
tool to address teacher shortages. The report also concluded that
opportunities existed for Education to integrate the program into its
overall teacher recruitment and retention initiatives, which included
efforts to assist both civilian and military mid-career professionals
become teachers. The 2002 enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA) reauthorized the program and its funding through 2007,
increased the total amount that could be spent on state placement
assistance services, and mandated a second GAO report. To address the
NCLBA mandate, this report answers the following questions:
1. What are the number and characteristics of program participants, and
what factors affect participation?
2. To what extent have participants been recruited and retained to
teach in high-need districts and priority subject areas?
3. What steps has Education taken to facilitate program management?
To conduct our work, we analyzed data that DANTES maintains on all
individuals who have registered for the program, focusing specifically
on those who have received funding between the enactment of NCLBA on
January 8, 2002, and June 30, 2005, which marks the end of the 2004-
2005 school year. For this population, we analyzed demographic and
financial assistance data, as well as information on the schools and
subject areas in which the teachers became employed. To assess the
reliability of school placement data, we matched the data DANTES
provided to data from Education's National Center for Education
Statistics' Common Core of Data, which includes district and school-
level information on free and reduced price meal eligibility, and the
U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program,
which includes district-level information on poverty. In addition, of
the 30 funded Troops-to-Teachers placement assistance offices, we
contacted personnel from 7 to obtain the perspectives of those helping
both large and small numbers of troops find employment through the
program. We also interviewed Education officials to discuss their
management of the program and to assess program practices against GAO
standards for internal controls, which establish a framework for
effective agency operations. Further, we interviewed officials at
DANTES and reviewed the results from a recent survey of program
participants conducted by the National Center for Education
Information--a private, non-partisan research organization specializing
in survey research and data analysis. We also spoke with several
researchers in the field of teacher recruitment, preparation, and
professional development, and reviewed related reports on these topics.
We assessed the reliability of all data elements used in the report and
determined that the data were sufficient and reliable for the purposes
of our study. We conducted our work between May 2005 and January 2006
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A
more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology appears in
appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The 3,875 teachers documented as having been hired between the
enactment of NCLBA in 2002 and June 30, 2005--the close of the 2004-
2005 school year--contributed to gender and racial diversity in the
teaching workforce. Participation has recently decreased and hiring has
been geographically concentrated. According to our review of
administrative records during this period, over 80 percent of Troops
teachers have been male and over 25 percent have been African-American,
demographic characteristics that differ from the new teacher population
at large, which is 26 percent male and 9 percent African-American. The
program's fiscal year 2005 annual report documents a 1-year decline in
program registrations and hires, and personnel from the placement
assistance offices we interviewed attributed this to the military's
ongoing demand for active and reserve troops. According to the
program's own data on school-year hiring, which tracks teaching
placements made between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005, the majority
of teachers hired from the program were geographically concentrated in
seven states--Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Texas,
and Virginia. According to interviews with placement office personnel,
the concentration of hires partly can be attributed to the number and
presence of military bases and personnel in these locations.
Most funded teachers were recruited and retained by schools meeting the
statutory definition of high-need and about one-third reported teaching
in priority subject areas. Most teachers receiving financial assistance
through the program between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005,
found employment in schools meeting program criteria for serving
children who qualify for federal assistance--either through free or
reduced-price meals or special education services. With regard to
retention, about 90 percent of the funded participants teaching in high-
need districts were retained for a second year, and over 75 percent
taught for a third year. However, valid comparisons with national
retention rates are not possible because Education calculates teacher
retention in high-need schools rather than high-need districts and also
uses a different definition than Troops-to-Teachers uses when defining
what constitutes a high-need school. Thirty-five percent of Troops
hired taught in at least one of the priority areas of math, science,
special education, or vocational education and 37 percent of all hired
teachers reported finding employment in secondary schools.
Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but has
not explored some opportunities for coordination with related teacher
recruitment activities. In the past several years, Education has
promulgated a final rule to clarify the definition of a high-need
school district, drafted a preliminary work plan to oversee the
program, and signed a memorandum of agreement with DOD. However, the
department does not have procedures in place to validate that DANTES is
accurately designating schools as high-need and does not monitor the
spending patterns of the program's state placement assistance offices
to ensure that funding levels are commensurate with success in
facilitating troops' employment. Additionally, despite operating
multiple programs to recruit, retain, and develop teachers--including
the Transition to Teaching program, which also serves the military
population--there was little evidence that Education coordinated
resources among these initiatives. For example, Education does not know
the extent to which these programs are working together to expand the
opportunities for troops to obtain their teaching certifications.
Further, Education has disbanded its teacher policy group, which had
previously convened to allow managers a forum to discuss teacher-
related programs.
To enhance the department's oversight of this program, we are
recommending that the Secretary of Education take steps to improve
program management, such as better assessing data used to designate
schools as high-need, and enhancing coordination with existing teacher
recruitment and retention initiatives. After reviewing a draft of this
report, officials from DOD indicated that they did not have any
comments, while officials from Education generally agreed with our
findings and recommendations.
Background:
According to Education, about 300,000 individuals obtain teaching
certifications each year and the career path generally begins by
enrolling in either a traditional or an alternative certification
program, typically provided by a 4-year institution of higher
education. Programs are considered "traditional" when they combine
subject matter instruction, training on how to manage a classroom, and
field experience, or "alternative" when they enroll individuals who
already have the subject matter knowledge and focus instead on
classroom management and exposure to real-life teaching and learning
conditions. Based on Education data, 46 states reported implementing
alternative routes to certification, and about 35,000 individuals each
year obtain their teaching credentials through alternative programs.
According to Education, many alternative certification programs are
designed to recruit teachers into shortage areas such as math, science,
and special education or to increase gender and ethnic diversity in the
teaching workforce.
The Troops-to-Teachers program facilitates the entry of former military
personnel into the teaching profession by assessing their academic
history and professional skills and by counseling individuals toward
appropriate programs to obtain certification.
Members and former members of the armed forces are generally eligible
to participate in Troops-to-Teachers if they have a baccalaureate or
advanced degree [Footnote 2] and meet any of the following four
requirements:
* They are retired from active or reserve service.
* They have an approved date of retirement that is within 1 year after
the date on which the member submits an application to participate in
the program.
* They have separated from active duty after 6 or more years of
continuous service and enter into a commitment to continue in the
reserves for at least 3 years.
* They are currently serving in the reserves and have at least 10 years
of active or reserve duty and enter into a commitment to continue in
the reserves for at least 3 years.
Eligible members selected to participate in the program must enter into
an agreement to obtain certification or licensing as an elementary,
secondary, or vocational or technical teacher and to become a highly
qualified teacher. [Footnote 3] In addition, program participants must
agree to accept full-time employment as a teacher for at least 3 years
with a high-need school district or public charter school. NCLBA
further requires that in selecting eligible members of the armed forces
to receive assistance under the program, priority is to be given to
members who have educational or military experience in science,
mathematics, special education, or vocational or technical subjects,
and agree to seek employment as science, mathematics, special
education, or vocational education teachers.
Participants in the program may receive stipends of not more than
$5,000 to help defray the cost of enrollment in a teaching
certification program if they agree to teach in high-need school
districts, defined as those in which there are specific numbers or
percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty
line, or public charter schools. Participants may instead receive
bonuses of $10,000 if they agree to teach in high-need schools--defined
as those in which the student population meets certain low-income
eligibility criteria or in which large percentages of students have
disabilities--that are also located in high-need districts. As further
clarified by Education in a recent final rule, participants initially
receiving a stipend who agree to teach for at least 3 years in a high-
need school within a high-need school district or a public charter
school can receive a total payment of $10,000 less their stipend
payments. Reimbursement generally is required of the participant under
certain circumstances, such as failing to obtain certification, to
become a highly qualified teacher, or to obtain employment. Individuals
who do not meet the criteria for stipends and bonuses are ineligible
for financial assistance, but can still receive counseling and referral
services through the program. Table 1 illustrates the terms of the
financial assistance available.
Table 1: Financial Assistance Provided through the Troops-to- Teachers
Program:
Qualifying criteria: Conditions required for receipt of financial
assistance;
Type of financial assistance available: Stipend: Three years of
employment beginning within 1 year of licensure at any school located
in a high-need district or at a public charter school;
Type of financial assistance available: Bonus: Three years of
employment beginning within 1 year of licensure at a high-need school
located in a high-need district.
Qualifying criteria: Amount available per teacher;
Type of financial assistance available: Stipend: Up to $5,000;
Type of financial assistance available: Bonus: $10,000.
Qualifying criteria: Timeline for monetary disbursement;
Type of financial assistance available: Stipend: Two installments[A];
Up to $3,000 upon enrollment in a certification program; Up to $2,000
after the attainment of a teaching license;
Type of financial assistance available: Bonus: Three installments[B];
$3,333.33 made at the start of each teaching year or, for those who
have already received stipend payments, the remaining balance owed
divided in thirds.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] If the cost of the certification program does not exceed $3,000,
one lump sum payment equal to the actual certification costs is made
upon enrollment.
[B] The total amount of payments received through the program is not to
exceed $10,000. Thus, for those first receiving a stipend and then
receiving a bonus, their total stipend and bonus payments will be no
more than $10,000.
[End of table]
DANTES administers the Troops-to-Teachers program, working with 30
state placement assistance offices, 6 of which are considered regional
offices because they provide coverage for neighboring states in which
there are no designated Troops-to-Teachers personnel. [Footnote 4] Each
state office is responsible for recruiting participants through
advertisements and face-to-face encounters, assessing participants'
academic transcripts, guiding them toward the appropriate state
certification programs, and providing placement assistance to direct
them to high-need schools or districts and priority subject areas.
According to the program's authorizing statute, no more than $5 million
per year can be used to establish and maintain these placement
assistance offices, and grants to states for these placement offices
are made at the Secretary of Education's discretion.
As figure 1 illustrates, many legislative changes made to the Troops-
to-Teachers program have affected both the program's administration and
the identification of schools and districts in which employment makes
servicemembers eligible to receive financial assistance.
Figure 1: Key Legislative and Regulatory Changes in the Troops-to-
Teachers Program:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
With regard to eligibility for financial assistance, the type of school
in which a participant is statutorily required to teach has changed
significantly since the program started. Prior to NCLBA's
reauthorization of the program, participants were required to teach in
a district receiving Title I funds in order to receive a stipend.
[Footnote 5] Under current requirements, participants can receive a
stipend for teaching in a high-need district or public charter school
and can receive a bonus for teaching in a high-need school. The
definition of a high-need school that was established in the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 included a school that
had a dropout rate exceeding the national average or that had a large
percentage of students speaking English as a second language; however,
this definition has changed. Table 2 illustrates the current
definitions for both a high-need school and a high-need district. The
table also incorporates Education's recent clarification on the
definition of a high-need district, which became effective through a
final rule in September 2005.
Table 2: Definitions of High-Need Schools and High-Need Districts:
High-need school: A "high-need school" is a public elementary, public
secondary, or public charter school in which either (1) 50 percent or
more of the enrolled student population is eligible for free or reduced-
price lunches[A] or (2) a large percentage of students qualify for
assistance under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA);
High-need district: A "high-need district" is one in which (1) 10,000
or more children are from families with incomes below the poverty
line,[B] or (2) 20 percent or more of children are from families with
incomes below the poverty line, or (3) between 10 and 20 percent of
students have families with incomes below the poverty line and all
teachers funded through the program are employed in high-need schools.
Source: 20 U.S.C. § 6674(d)(3) and 34 C.F.R. § 230.2.
[A] The statute states that at least 50 percent of students enrolled in
the school must be from low-income families. DANTES has issued guidance
defining this criterion as meaning students eligible for free and
reduced-price lunches.
[B] Poverty line refers to the family income, adjusted for family size,
that the U.S. Census Bureau defines as the threshold below which a
family can be considered living in poverty, for statistical purposes.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the 2005
poverty guideline--used for determining financial eligibility for
certain federal programs--for a family of four living in the contiguous
United States was $19,350.
[End of table]
With regard to program administration, legislative shifts have prompted
changes in oversight. DANTES has maintained daily administration of the
program since its inception, but when the statute shifted program
oversight to Education, a memorandum of agreement was needed to outline
the relationship between DANTES, DOD, and Education. According to the
current agreement, which was signed in February 2004, DANTES' fiscal
and administrative responsibilities--such as facilitating recruitment
activities, selecting participants, managing program participant files,
and overseeing state placement assistance offices--remained intact, but
DANTES' personnel were also expected to provide Education with an
annual performance report, an itemized financial report, and a program
report on key participant characteristics.
According to the agreement, DOD has the following responsibilities:
* Transfer funds from Education to DANTES for the administration of the
program.
* Assign responsibility for the administration and management of the
program to DANTES.
* Provide information about the program to military personnel as part
of its pre-separation counseling.
While, among other responsibilities, Education is now expected to:
* Transfer the congressionally appropriated funds to DOD.
* Oversee DANTES' use of these dollars.
* Monitor on an annual basis the implementation of all activities
carried out by the program through review and approval of annual budget
plans, compliance reviews, audits, and site visits.
* Monitor the expenditure of available funds during any fiscal year and
assure that no more than 10 percent of these funds is used for
administrative infrastructure.
* Provide support and technical assistance.
* Provide legal and policy advice on programmatic issues arising under
the authorizing legislation.
Aside from overseeing Troops-to-Teachers, Education engages in several
additional activities to encourage teacher recruitment in high-need
areas. For example, the department provides funding to forgive the
student loans of highly qualified math, science, and special education
teachers serving in low-income communities. Education also provides
states with recruitment grants to help reduce shortages of qualified
teachers in high-need districts through scholarships and support
services. In addition, the department operates the Transition to
Teaching program, which, like Troops-to-Teachers, helps adult
professionals make a career change into the teaching profession.
The 3,875 Troops Documented as Recent Hires Have Contributed to
Diversity in the Teaching Workforce, but Participation Has Recently
Decreased and Is Geographically Concentrated:
The 3,875 troops who were documented as having been hired through the
program between the enactment of NCLBA in 2002 and June 30, 2005--the
close of the 2004-2005 school year--contributed to gender and racial
diversity in the teaching workforce. [Footnote 6] However,
participation has recently decreased and hiring has been geographically
concentrated. Over 80 percent of Troops teachers are male and over 25
percent are African-American--characteristics that differ from the new
teacher population at large. Interviews with personnel from several
state placement assistance offices indicated that recruitment has been
negatively affected by recent overseas deployments. Based on DANTES'
own records of school year hiring--July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2005-
-the majority of the program's teachers found employment within seven
states, with about 700 hired in Texas alone. According to state
placement personnel in these and other states, the number and presence
of military bases and military personnel in these locations also affect
participation.
The Program Brought Males and Minorities to the Teaching Profession:
Since Troops-to-Teachers' inception through June 30, 2005, about 30,720
individuals registered for the program. Beginning with the enactment of
NCLBA through June 30, 2005, more than 3,870 of these registrants
documented that they went on to teach, helping to diversify the
teaching workforce. Over 80 percent of all the teachers hired through
the program during this period were male, a demographic consistent with
the military population but different than that of the new teacher
workforce, [Footnote 7] which is only 26 percent male. Similarly,
African-Americans have represented a larger percentage of teachers in
the program when compared to their representation in the military and
in the new teaching workforce. Specifically, the proportion of African-
Americans teaching through Troops-to-Teachers is 28 percent, which is
higher than the share of African-Americans in the military population
(17 percent), the civilian workforce (11 percent), and the new teacher
population (9 percent). Table 3 illustrates additional demographic
characteristics of Troops-to-Teachers participants.
Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of Teachers from the Program Hired
between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005:
Gender:
Participant characteristics: Male;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 82.
Participant characteristics: Female;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 18.
Race/ethnicity:
Participant characteristics: White/Non-Hispanic;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 56.
Participant characteristics: African-American/Non-Hispanic; Troops-to-
Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 28.
Participant characteristics: Hispanic/Latino;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 8.
Participant characteristics: Other/Unknown;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 5.
Participant characteristics: Asian/Pacific Islander; Troops-to-
Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 1.
Participant characteristics: American Indian;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 1.
Education:
Participant characteristics: Bachelor's degree;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 56.
Participant characteristics: Graduate degree;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 39.
Participant characteristics: Other degree;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 5.
Military branch:
Participant characteristics: Army;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 33.
Participant characteristics: Air Force;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 26.
Participant characteristics: Navy;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 15.
Participant characteristics: Reserves;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 12.
Participant characteristics: National Guard;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 8.
Participant characteristics: Marines;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 4.
Participant characteristics: Coast Guard;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 1.
Military pay grade:
Participant characteristics: Enlisted;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 64.
Participant characteristics: Officer;
Troops-to-Teachers classroom teachers (percent): 36.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.
[End of table]
As table 3 documents, Troops-to-Teachers' classroom teachers most
frequently served in the Army (33 percent), Air Force (26 percent), and
Navy (15 percent) before registering with the program.
Barriers to Participation Include Ongoing Military Deployments:
DANTES' latest annual report indicates that registrations have declined
and officials from all of the seven placement offices we interviewed
said that a number of factors affect participation. These officials
also noted that despite the allure of more lucrative professions,
registrants have a keen interest in working with children and want to
remain in public service after leaving the military.
The program's fiscal year 2005 annual report notes that registrations
declined by 9 percent from fiscal year 2004. State placement personnel
said that the high demand for troops to support the conflicts in Iraq
and Afghanistan has resulted in decreased Troops-to-Teachers program
registrations. Further, personnel in some offices noted that DOD's stop
loss policy has reduced the volume of calls and inquiries. [Footnote 8]
These individuals also speculated that Education's recent rule, which
was implemented in September 2005, and changed the criteria for receipt
of bonuses, would further reduce the number of participants. According
to these officials, the projected decrease in registrations would
result because potential applicants would no longer be able to attain
the needed financial assistance if the schools most appealing to them
did not meet the new criteria specified in the rule. However, others
reported that registrants typically lacked information about school
eligibility at the time of their application. As we will discuss later
in the report, due to several data limitations, the affect of the rule
on the number of qualifying schools and districts cannot be precisely
determined.
In addition, some officials noted that barriers to entering the
teaching profession, such as difficulty identifying and enrolling in a
flexible and convenient teacher certification program, could limit
participation, but they expressed the opinion that as these programs
became more prevalent, teacher credentialing could accelerate and more
individuals would consider the profession to be a viable option.
According to a 2005 survey of nearly 1,500 Troops-to-Teachers
participants, 58 percent of respondents received their teaching
credentials through traditional, campus-based teacher education
programs--either at the undergraduate or graduate level--40 percent of
respondents took an alternative certification route to receive the same
credential, and the remaining respondents were unsure how to
characterize their programs. [Footnote 9]
At the individual level, motivational factors also were reported as
influencing participation. According to the 2005 survey, nearly 60
percent of respondents said they would not have become a teacher if the
Troops-to-Teachers program had not been available, and more than 60
percent of respondents said they decided to become teachers because of
their desire to work with young people. The state placement personnel
we interviewed made comments that reflected this, with officials from
three of the seven offices specifically noting troops' interests in
working with young people, and officials from five offices mentioning
that troops often have experience coaching and mentoring younger and
newer recruits. Additionally, personnel from all seven of the placement
assistance offices we interviewed characterized troops entering the
classroom as mature, experienced in working with diverse socio-economic
groups, professional, and adaptable. That said, they acknowledged that
professions more lucrative than teaching, such as those in the
consulting or defense-related industries, could lead many away from the
education profession.
In Recent Years, Seven States Encompassed over Half the Teachers Hired
from the Program, and Costs per Teacher Hired Varied Nationwide:
Based on DANTES' data collected from school years 2001-2002 through
2004-2005 (the period between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005), the
number of teachers hired from the program varied widely across the
country. For example, among the seven states with the largest number of
Troops hired over this period--Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Texas, and Virginia--the number of hires ranged from 169 in
California to 697 in Texas. In contrast, during the same period, there
were 34 states in which fewer than 50 teachers were hired from the
program. [Footnote 10] In particular, 13 of these states had fewer than
10 hires over the same 4 years. Nevertheless, even among the seven
states with the largest numbers of hires, teachers from the Troops
program comprise less than 1 percent of the K-12 workforce. Figure 2
illustrates the pattern of hiring from the program across the country
during this period.
Figure 2: Number of Troops-to-Teachers Participants Hired by State,
July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Map does not include the nine hires in overseas locations.
[End of figure]
The concentration of hires also reflects, to some extent, the
concentration of military personnel in these states. Officials from
DANTES and the placement offices said that troops tend to seek
employment close to a military base because of the services provided
there, such as medical, career counseling, and commissary services.
States with a larger number of military bases also had a larger number
of Troops participants hired in their schools.
Figure 3: Concentration of Troops Hired through the Program between the
Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, Relative to the Location of Major
Military Installations, by County:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Major military installations include all forts, bases, presidios,
and military reservations--including all facilities with 1,500 or more
military personnel--serving all branches of the military.
[End of figure]
The majority of states (34) hired fewer than 50 program teachers
between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005--accounting for 15 percent of
hires during this period--but placement offices serving these states
accounted for a significant proportion of placement office funds (24
percent or $1.1 million of $4.6 million). Given the hiring variation
across the country, DANTES compiles a report card to assess
efficiencies in the 30 funded placement assistance offices. The report
card assigns a letter grade based on each office's cost (budget) per
Troops participant hired. Report card grades for fiscal year 2004 were
nearly evenly distributed "A" through "C," with about eight states in
each category, and another five receiving a "D," the grade assigned to
states with the highest costs per hire. Costs per hire ranged from $181
in Arkansas to $22,000 in Montana, with the median state cost per hire
approximately $4,000. Five of the seven offices with the greatest
number of hires had cost per hire ratios below the median--suggesting
economies of scale and a strong market for Troops participants in these
states.
Some states with high cost-per-hire ratios noted the frequency with
which they are counseling registrants who ultimately find employment
outside their states. However, our analysis of DANTES' information on
teacher hiring shows that, between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30,
2005, 5 percent of program registrants found employment in a state
administered by a placement assistance office other than the office
with which they registered.
Most Funded Teachers Have Been Recruited and Retained by Districts
Designated as High-Need, and about One-Third Reported Teaching in
Priority Subject Areas:
Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program
between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, found employment in
high-need districts, and about 90 percent of those first funded
continued teaching in such districts their second year. Over 75 percent
of this original group taught in high-need districts for a third year,
but data for retention beyond 3 years are unavailable. About one-third
of the troops hired during this period reported teaching in the
priority areas of math, science, special education, or vocational
education, and based on reported data, 37 percent of hires reported
teaching at the secondary school level.
Most Funded Teachers Worked in Schools Serving Large Percentages of
Children Who Qualify for Federal Assistance:
Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program during
this period found employment in schools designated as high-need. Those
individuals receiving bonuses are required to teach in high-need
schools, and DANTES validates their continued eligibility for funding
by requiring annual documentation of their employment. Those receiving
stipends are required to teach in high-need districts or public charter
schools and must also document their employment each year for DANTES'
verification, but these individuals are not required to teach in high-
need schools. DANTES does not track or verify the places of employment
for participants who do not receive funding.
As figure 4 illustrates, between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30,
2005, about 2,690 teachers have received some form of financial
assistance to teach in high-need schools or districts.
Figure 4: Types of Financial Assistance Received by Program
Participants Hired between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Counts rounded to nearest 10.
[End of figure]
Of this number, about 2,260 individuals received bonuses for teaching
in high-need schools. [Footnote 11] In this same time period, 254 of
the 430 hired teachers receiving only stipend dollars reported finding
teaching positions in a high-need district. [Footnote 12] In addition,
another roughly 950 participants who received a stipend but not a bonus
either have not yet completed their certification program or have just
completed it but have not yet been hired.
Even though more program registrants are eligible for a stipend than a
bonus, DANTES officials attribute the smaller number of stipend
recipients to (1) the fact that the program cannot guarantee employment
after the acquisition of a teaching certification and (2) participants'
own risk aversion. For example, if participants take the stipend money
up front to pay for their certification and then do not find a teaching
position in a high-need district, they will be required to repay the
funds--a risk that program officials said participants may not be
willing to take. On the contrary, if they decline the stipend money
initially and wait instead to see if they can obtain a teaching
position in a high-need school, program officials stated that these
participants will be eligible for a bonus and may feel more comfortable
making the 3-year teaching commitment that receipt of the bonus
requires.
Over 75 Percent of Funded Teachers Continued Teaching in Districts
Designated as High-Need for at Least 3 Years, but a Valid Comparison
with National Retention Rates Is Impossible:
DANTES tracks the 3-year retention rate for each starting teacher
because that is the term of teaching required for an individual to
receive financial assistance. Of teachers funded through either a bonus
or a stipend between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2002, and who
subsequently found employment in high-need districts, 90 percent
continued teaching in a high-need district in their second year, and
over 75 percent of this original group taught in a high-need district
for a third year. Retention rates for more recent starting teachers
cannot be calculated because 3 years have not yet passed since their
initial placement. In comparison, registrants who did not receive
funding through the program have had lower retention rates, with 47
percent teaching in a high-need district for a second year and 20
percent teaching for a third year.
The 1-year retention rate for Troops-to-Teachers' participants teaching
in high-need districts is not comparable to the national retention rate
that Education calculates because Education analyzes teacher retention
in high-need schools rather than in high-need districts. Further, even
if both calculations systematically assessed retention at the school-
house level, the two measures could still not be compared because
Education's definition of a high-need school differs from the
definition used by Troops-to-Teachers. Specifically, Education
considers a school high-need if 75 percent or more of the student
population is eligible for free or reduced-priced lunches. As we have
noted, the Troops program uses a high-need school definition that is
broader, including schools in which 50 percent or more of the student
population is eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, as
well as schools in which "large percentages" of students are served
under IDEA.
Although the statute requires bonus recipients to teach in high-need
schools for 3 years, recipients who initially found employment in a
high-need school may teach in a school not designated as such the
following year and thus postpone their second and third bonus payments
until employment in an eligible school is found again. If such
employment is not found, recipients are required to reimburse the
program for funds previously received. Similarly, stipend recipients
are required to reimburse the program when employment in a high-need
district is not continued for 3 years. Of the funded participants who
initially obtained a teaching position in a high-need school, but who
have not yet completed their 3-year teaching commitment, DANTES
officials stated that the program has not asked the vast majority for
reimbursement because they can still meet the law's requirements
through future employment. However, according to DANTES' officials,
they have requested that 21 percent of stipend recipients reimburse the
program because they did not fulfill their teaching obligation.
About One-Third of Teachers Hired from the Program Reported Teaching
Math, Science, Special Education, or Vocational Education:
Between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, about one-third of
hired Troops reported teaching in the priority areas of math, science,
special education, and vocational education, and, based on reported
data, 37 percent reported teaching at the secondary school level.
Because DANTES has been able to fund all qualified applicants, it has
not had to invoke the statutory subject area selection priorities. As
figure 5 illustrates, hired teachers were spread across a variety of
subject areas.
Figure 5: Percentage of Hired Teachers Reporting Subject Areas Taught
between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Subject area percentages include all funded and non-funded hired
teachers who reported information on the subject areas in which they
taught. Because only funded teachers have an obligation to report
annual employment information, this number may not include employment
for non-funded teachers. Additionally, not all funded participants
reported the subject areas in which they taught.
[End of figure]
During this same period, 14 percent of Troops participants were hired
into elementary schools, 19 percent were hired into middle schools, 37
percent were hired into secondary schools, 3 percent taught courses
covering multiple grade levels, and another 28 percent did not provide
information on the grade level they taught, based on reported data.
Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Program Management but Has Not
Effectively Coordinated Program Administration with Related
Initiatives:
Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but
coordination with related teacher recruitment activities is lacking.
For example, Education staff have promulgated a final rule to clarify
the definition of a high-need school district and drafted a preliminary
work plan to oversee the program. However, the department does not have
procedures in place to validate DANTES' designations of high-need
schools and does not monitor spending patterns of Troops-to-Teachers
placement offices. Additionally, despite operating multiple programs to
recruit, retain, and develop teachers, Education has done little to
facilitate coordination among the staff who manage these initiatives.
Education Has Better Defined High-Need Districts but Has Not Assessed
the Data It Uses to Make High-Need School Determinations:
After allowing time for public comment, Education promulgated a final
rule in July 2005, in part to clarify the definition of a high-need
school district. According to department officials, the rule change,
which took effect in September 2005, was necessary because of
discrepancies in the statute and subsequent confusion over which data
sources and indicators of poverty to use. [Footnote 13] While 66
percent of districts nationwide met the criteria for designation as
high-need--based on eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches--
before the rule change, the department has not collected data to
determine how the rule change would affect that number. Since a
district's designation as high-need depends, in some cases, on the
designation of schools within that district as high-need, and the
number of schools nationwide designated as high-need is unknown, any
discussion of how the rule change would affect qualifying districts
depends on certain assumptions. [Footnote 14] If we assume that all
districts with a poverty rate from 10 to 20 percent contain a high-need
school to which all funded teachers have been assigned, then the
percentage of districts qualifying would drop from 66 to 61. However,
if none of these districts contains a high-need school, then the
percentage of qualifying districts drops from 66 to 24.
Although Education better defined high-need districts, it has not
assessed the data it uses to make high-need school determinations.
Based on the statute, DANTES has defined a high-need school as having
either 50 percent of more of its student population eligible to receive
free and reduced-price lunches or "large percentages of children
receiving special education services under IDEA." However, unlike the
criterion related to lunches, which states a specific qualifying
percent that can be assessed using Education data sources, the statute
does not make clear what constitutes a "large percentage" of students
served under IDEA. In addition, the department does not have a basis
for calculating IDEA information at the school-house level because its
own Common Core of Data has that information only for districts.
According to DANTES' records, in an attempt to operationalize the
definition of a high-need school, the department provided verbal
guidance on or before February 15, 2002, on this issue, specifying that
DANTES should use an eligibility threshold of 11 percent, which it
characterized as the national average. However, no one at the
department we spoke with was familiar with the origins of this
guidance, and according to our review of Education's data, the
percentage of students receiving services under IDEA across the nation
was actually 13 percent in 2001 and 14 percent in 2002 and 2003.
[Footnote 15] By our analysis, three-quarters of districts nationwide
have 11 percent or more of their student population receiving IDEA
services--indicating that the threshold the department established to
define a "large percentage" may not result in a very targeted universe
of schools. In commenting on a draft of this report, Education
officials noted that in November 2005, they provided DANTES with the
latest national data on the percentage of students served under IDEA--
13.8 percent. According to Education, DANTES will use this figure when
making determinations for the upcoming school year.
Because Education does not collect IDEA information at the school-house
level, it is not possible to determine the concentration of students
receiving services under IDEA in individual schools, and DANTES must
use alternative data sources to determine if schools meet the IDEA
criterion. Specifically, DANTES currently relies on a database operated
by Standard and Poor's that presents the percentage of students
receiving services under IDEA for some schools in certain states. If
information on the schools where participants are working or applying
is omitted from the database, DANTES then has to call the schools to
make determinations on a case by case basis. Table 4 illustrates the
different sources DANTES must use to determine if schools and districts
meet the criteria necessary for designation as high-need.
Table 4: Criteria and Data Sources Used to Support the Designation of
High-Need Schools and Districts:
High-Need schools:
Criteria: At least 50 percent of the student population must be
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch;
Data sources DANTES uses: Education's National Center for Education
Statistics' Common Core of Data;
Percent of schools or districts, as applicable, meeting criterion
nationwide: 39.7%.
Criteria: Large percentage of students qualify for assistance under
IDEA;
Data sources DANTES uses: Information obtained from a database
maintained by Standard and Poor's, known as SchoolMatters.com, and from
contacts with schools omitted from the database, in which participants
are applying or working;
Percent of schools or districts, as applicable, meeting criterion
nationwide: School-level data not collected at the national level--
DANTES uses 11% as the operational definition for "high percentage".
High-Need districts:
Criteria: At least 10,000 students have families with incomes below the
poverty line;
Data sources DANTES uses: U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates program;
Percent of schools or districts, as applicable, meeting criterion
nationwide: 0.7%[A].
Criteria: At least 20 percent of the student population has families
with incomes below the poverty line;
Data sources DANTES uses: U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates program;
Percent of schools or districts, as applicable, meeting criterion
nationwide: 23.4%.
Criteria: Between 10% and 20% of students have families with incomes
below the poverty line and teachers through the program are employed in
high-need schools;
Data sources DANTES uses: U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates program;
Percent of schools or districts, as applicable, meeting criterion
nationwide: Up to 37.9%[B].
Source: Troops-to-Teachers legislation and regulations, DANTES, and
U.S. Department of Education.
[A] The vast majority of districts with 10,000 or more students from
families with incomes below the poverty line also have at least 10
percent of the student population in poverty.
[B] In the absence of national information on IDEA participation at the
school-house level, it is unknown how many schools meet the high-need
criteria. As a result, it is impossible to determine how many districts
across the nation contain a high-need school. However, if all of the
37.9 percent of districts containing between 10 and 20 percent of
students in poverty have at least one school that meets the high-need
criteria and all funded teachers have been assigned to this school,
then they can be designated as high-need districts.
[End of table]
Education officials noted the difficulty of amassing the various data
needed for DANTES to adhere to the definition of high-need schools, and
cited this as a reason for not developing a centralized database of
information. However, according to Education officials, the department
had not assessed the reliability of the steps DANTES currently uses to
make high-need school determinations. Without a thorough review of the
validity of available data, the department is unable to determine (1)
if DANTES is applying the existing eligibility criteria appropriately,
and (2) if the eligibility thresholds, particularly with regard to
IDEA, reflect current conditions.
Education Lacks Controls to Ensure Effective Allocation of Program
Funds and Timely Execution of Its Management Responsibilities:
Education has not effectively implemented some of the controls
necessary to ensure that the program is efficiently achieving its
objectives. GAO's standards for agencies' internal control activities
note the importance of qualified and continuous supervision, overall
workforce continuity planning, and regular review of performance
reports, budgets, and trends to ensure effective agency operations.
[Footnote 16] Since 2001, Education has had four different individuals
responsible for the Troops-to-Teachers program. Further, while one
former manager had drafted a preliminary work plan, which included
developing an evaluation plan and working with DANTES to develop
performance measures, officials acknowledged that they had not focused
on implementing the steps, and said that the current work plan needed
improvement. When we established that no timeline was in place to
implement the existing plan, officials responded that they would
finalize a revised plan and implement it by February 2006. Officials
added that while Troops-to-Teachers is included in Education's annual
performance report, they are also working on alternative outcome
measures that better assess the quality of teachers recruited through
the program.
In addition, Education lacks the necessary controls to ensure that the
program is spending its funding not only within the parameters
established by the statute and the memorandum of agreement, but also in
an efficient and productive way. The statute caps annual grants that
can be made to states for Troops-to-Teachers' placement office
operations at $5 million and the memorandum caps expenses associated
with administrative infrastructure, such as DANTES' spending on
database management or personnel, at 10 percent of the total available
funds. While Education officials check to ensure that the program does
not exceed its caps, they neither review how DANTES spends its budget
nor do they monitor the spending patterns of placement assistance
offices. As noted earlier, 13 of the 30 funded placement offices
received low scores of either "C" or "D" but department officials told
us they have not determined if the cost per hire ratios, which drive
the grades DANTES assigns, are appropriate measures of state offices'
performance. As a result, the department is not positioned to comment
on the dispersion of these grades or to take action to address poor
performing offices. Specifically, without assessing these measures or
alternative performance data, Education cannot determine whether state
offices should be closed or consolidated to improve program efficiency.
Additionally, our analysis of the program's overall expenditures for
fiscal year 2002 showed that about 60 percent was allotted to financial
assistance and 40 percent of funds supported operational or
administrative expenses in the central office and placement offices.
[Footnote 17] For fiscal year 2004, to date, the amount expended on
financial assistance has been just over 50 percent of the program's
total expenditures. Without a thorough review of these spending
patterns, the department's ability to take action when spending
approaches the caps may be limited.
Education Has Not Made Efforts to Coordinate Program Administration
with Other Federal Teacher Development Activities:
Education operates another teacher recruitment and retention program--
the Transition to Teaching program--that overlaps somewhat with the
mission of Troops-to-Teachers. Both programs recruit mid-career
professionals to teach in high-need schools and in subjects such as
math and science, for which qualified teachers are in short supply.
Both programs target career changers and Transition to Teaching funds
are also used to recruit from the military population. However, as
illustrated in table 5, Transition to Teaching is distinct from Troops-
to-Teachers in that it provides grants directly to organizations, such
as universities or county offices of education, that operate teacher
certification programs.
Table 5: Selected Department of Education Activities to Facilitate
Entrance into the Teaching Profession:
Program: Transition to Teaching;
Mission: To support (1) the development of new or enhanced alternative
routes to certification and (2) the participation of mid-career
professionals in these programs and their ultimate recruitment by and
retention in high-need schools and districts. Grant recipients operate
programs that serve mid-career professionals from all industries and
trades--participation is neither limited to nor focused exclusively on
the military;
Funding recipients: State and local educational agencies, for-profit
organizations, non-profit organizations, or institutions of higher
education collaborating with state or local educational agencies are
eligible for 5-year grants to operate their programs;
Numbers served: 164 grantees have received funding to operate their
programs since the federal program began in calendar year 2001;
FY 2005 funding: $44,900,000.
Program: Troops-to-Teachers;
Mission: To recruit, prepare, and support former members of the armed
forces as teachers in high-need schools and districts;
Funding recipients: Individuals participating in the program are
eligible for stipends and bonuses to facilitate entry into the teaching
profession;
Numbers served: About 8,000 individuals have received financial
assistance since the program began in fiscal year 1994;
FY 2005 funding: $14,800,000.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
We found that 12 of the 123 grants (approximately 10 percent) made
through the Transition to Teaching program from the 2002 and 2004 award
years funded programs that specifically targeted military personnel.
[Footnote 18] For example, several universities receiving Transition to
Teaching grants recruit from the retired military population and
operate programs that provide mentoring services to assist with their
retention and development. The remaining Transition to Teaching
grantees generally focus their recruitment on career changers from a
wide variety of professions, although they too may provide mentoring
and ongoing support for new teacher candidates.
Despite the similarities in the mission of Transition to Teaching and
Troops-to-Teachers, and the fact that they are administered by the same
office within Education, we found minimal coordination between the
programs. Although Education officials said that department personnel
from both programs attend the same conferences and share ideas, there
was little evidence of resource coordination beyond discussions of how
the programs related. Additionally, officials noted that a teacher
policy group had previously existed within the department so that
managers could meet regularly to discuss the teacher-related programs
they oversaw. Though department officials told us that the group had
disbanded, they noted it would be a useful tool to facilitate ongoing
collaboration.
Differences in data collection and monitoring strategies exist that may
further limit the coordination of these programs. For example, DANTES
collects participation data on the Troops-to-Teachers program. For the
Transition to Teaching program, however, Education merely lists grant
recipients and summarizes their programs. Additionally, Education
collects very little data to assess grant recipients' program outcomes.
According to Education's performance report on Transition to Teaching,
grantees use different methods for reporting data to the department.
Further, the department does not have any summary information on the
program's outcomes over time, but agency officials told us they have
contracted with an independent research group to evaluate performance
for a sample of 2002 grant recipients. Because Education does not know
the demographic characteristics of the individuals who benefit from the
Transition to Teaching program, the department cannot determine the
extent to which the two programs complement and coordinate with one
another to move former military personnel into teaching positions.
Education officials told us that they believe statutory barriers would
prevent the consolidation of Troops-to-Teachers with the other programs
like Transition to Teaching. Nevertheless, the officials acknowledged
similarities between the programs and supported the idea of further
coordination.
Conclusions:
Between the enactment of NCLBA on January 8, 2002, and June 30, 2005,
the Troops-to-Teachers program helped at least 3,875 former members of
the military enter the teaching profession, contributing to the
diversification of the teaching workforce. However, without thoroughly
reviewing the data sources that DANTES uses to designate schools as
high-need, Education cannot ensure that DANTES is (1) making accurate
decisions about which schools meet the criteria and (2) placing new
teachers in these high-need schools. Further, without providing updated
guidance on eligibility thresholds for students served under IDEA,
Education cannot ensure that the criteria currently used reflect
schools' changing conditions.
Education, which has overseen the program since 2000, has taken some
steps to manage the program, but it only recently established a
timeline to finalize and implement a draft work plan. As of December
2005, however, it remained unclear whether or not this plan would
include a formal mechanism, such as a joint work group, to coordinate
with a similar program also administered by the department--the
Transition to Teaching program. Without more detailed coordination
strategies, Education may be missing an important opportunity to
leverage its resources and develop an effective campaign to recruit and
retain mid-career professionals in high-need schools.
Finally, although the program's operating budget is relatively small,
without stronger controls in place to determine if program spending
levels are appropriate, the department cannot ensure that placement
offices are efficiently serving both eligible participants and the
children in the neediest schools and districts. Thus, while the program
is spending within its caps, because the department does not review how
placement offices manage their funds, it is unable to identify those
offices that are working well, determine ways in which consolidation
may be wise, and justify the continued investment of federal dollars.
In addition, without leveraging the efficiencies of placement offices
that operate with low costs per hire, and considering the closure or
consolidation of less efficient offices, the department may be unable
to reduce the program's operating costs and free additional funds for
financial assistance, should the number of program registrants rise.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making three recommendations to further improve Education's
oversight of the Troops-to-Teachers program.
* To assist with the identification of eligible high-need schools and
to help direct participants to them, the Secretary of Education should
assess the reliability of the data DANTES uses to determine a "large
percentage" of students served under IDEA and periodically review
existing guidance to ensure that the eligibility threshold related to
the IDEA criterion reflects the changing conditions in schools.
* To better link programs that serve the military population and that
relate to teacher recruitment and retention overall, the Secretary of
Education should consider reconvening teacher policy groups or
otherwise developing a plan to coordinate the use of existing
departmental resources and staff assigned to monitor similar programs.
* To better exercise its discretion for grant-making to state placement
offices and to ensure that budgets are created to reflect success in
facilitating teacher placement, the Secretary of Education should
consider data that DANTES collects on placement offices' cost per hire
ratios, or develop other measures of efficiency, and take action when
offices are deemed ineffective at helping participants find employment.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education and DOD for their
review and comment. DOD did not provide any comments, and Education's
comments are reproduced in appendix II.
Education generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. With
regard to our first recommendation--that Education assess the
reliability of the data DANTES uses to determine a "large percentage"
of students served under IDEA and also review existing guidance it
provides on making the determination--Education said that in November
2005, it provided DANTES with an updated figure on the percentage of
students served nationally under IDEA. While our report reflects the
information that DANTES had available for the current school year, the
data that Education recently provided will be used for making
determinations for the upcoming school year. We believe that it is
important for the department to periodically update the IDEA data and
to regularly monitor the reliability of the information that DANTES
collects from schools to address this criterion.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education
and Defense, relevant congressional committees, and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be made available at no charge on our Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff has any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Other contacts and major contributors are listed
in appendix III.
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of
methodological approaches. To provide information on the number and
characteristics of program participants and the factors affecting
participation--our first reporting objective--we analyzed data that
DANTES maintains on registered program participants, focusing on those
participants who received funding through the program between the
enactment of NCLBA on January 8, 2002, and June 30, 2005, which marks
the end of the 2004-2005 school year. These data include demographic
information, such as age and race, as well as information on the
schools, subject areas, and grade levels taught for the participants'
first 3 years of employment, which also helped us respond to our second
reporting objective--the extent to which participants have been hired
by and retained in high-need districts and priority subject
areas.[Footnote 19] To assess placement into high-need districts, we
matched employment information to Education's Common Core of Data
school survey, which includes school and district-level counts of free
and reduced-price lunch eligibility. To provide information on the
impact of the final rule on the number of school districts eligible to
be classified as high-need, we analyzed data from the U.S. Census
Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program, which
includes enrollment and poverty counts by school district.
To provide information on factors affecting participation, we reviewed
the methodology and findings from a recently issued survey of current
Troops participants, which measures their satisfaction with the
program, motivations to teach, views on professional development, and
future career or retirement plans. In addition, we contacted personnel
in several placement assistance offices to learn their perspectives.
Although we were unable to quantify the order and magnitude of the
factors they noted, these interviews contributed significantly to our
findings in this regard.
To report on our final objective--the steps that Education has taken to
implement internal controls to facilitate program management--we
interviewed Education and DOD officials responsible for the oversight
and administration of the program to learn more about the select
internal controls that they implement to evaluate program achievements
and the cost-effectiveness of the program. These controls include
annual performance reports that states provide to DANTES and that
DANTES in turn presents to Education and DOD. In addition, we assessed
DANTES' calculation of each state office's average cost per placement.
We also obtained and reviewed relevant program guidance and materials
from Education and DOD as appropriate to document these practices,
including information on the new rule Education finalized in July 2005
to clarify program eligibility and its potential impact on the
recruitment and retention of program participants. In addition, to
provide general background information, we interviewed several
education policy researchers, some of whom were teaching or researching
in the field of teacher preparation, induction, and professional
development, and reviewed related reports on these topics.
We assessed the reliability of DANTES' administrative data by tracing
the dataset contents to the source registration and program materials
for all variables used in our analysis. In addition, we assessed the
reliability of Education's Common Core of Data and the Census Bureau's
Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program data by reviewing
existing information about the data and the system that produced them,
and where applicable, performing electronic testing of required data
elements. We further assessed the reliability of the Census data by
reviewing published assessments by Census Bureau statisticians of both
the model itself and how the results of that model compare to other
national sources of income and poverty information. We determined that
the data were sufficient and reliable for the purposes of our report.
The work was done in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT:
FEB 7 2006:
Ms. Marine Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Securities Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
Thank You for the Opportunity to comment on the draft report entitled,
"Troops to Teachers: Program Brings More Men and Minorities to the
Teaching Workforce, but Education Could Improve Management to Enhance
Results" (GAO-06-265). This report fulfills a mandate of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLBA) that the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
conduct an assessment of the Troops-to-Teachers program's
accomplishments from January 2002 through June 2005. We have
appreciated the opportunity to assist GAO in completing this study.
In the report, GAO makes three specific recommendations regarding the
Department's oversight of this program. I would like to present one
general comment and then specific comments on the three
recommendations.
The Troops-to-Teachers program is unique in the manner in which it is
authorized, giving the responsibility for program oversight to the
Department of Education and responsibility for program administration
and management to the Department of Defense through the Defense
Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES). We are aware
of the challenges that arise in a program jointly administered in this
way by two agencies and, as a result, we are working closely with
DANTES to respond to implementation issues in a timely and appropriate
way.
The fast recommendation made in the report is that ".to assist with the
identification of eligible high-need schools and to help direct
participants to them, the Secretary of Education should assess the
reliability of the data DANTES uses to determine a 'large percentage'
of students served under IDEA and periodically review existing guidance
to ensure that the eligibility threshold related to the IDEA criterion
reflects the changing conditions in schools."
Each year, the Department, through the National Center for Education
Statistics (LACES), publishes national data on the number and
percentage of students served under IDEA. LACES generates this number
by analyzing various data sets provided by the Department's Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in its annual report to
Congress on the implementation of IDEA.
Office of Innovation and Improvement staff, in turn, provide each
year's NOES data to DANTES. Most recently, on November 25 of last year,
we informed DANTES that the latest national data indicate that 13.8
percent of students nationally are served under IDEA. DANTES will use
this percentage, for the coming year, in determining whether a school
has a large percentage of students served under IDEA. More
specifically, DANTES will identify schools with more than 13.8 percent
students served under IDEA as having a large percentage of those
students. This procedure continues our past practice of classifying
schools with a higher-than-average percentage of students served under
IDEA (based on the most current data) as having a large percentage of
students in that status. We believe that this procedure is responsive
to the need, referenced in the report, to use accurate data that
reflect the changing conditions in schools. While the draft report
stated that the Department some years ago had provided DANTES with an 1
I percent statistic and had never updated that number, I am happy to
report that this statement is no longer accurate.
The second recommendation in the draft report is that ".the Secretary
of Education should consider reconvening the teacher policy groups or
otherwise developing a plan to coordinate the use of existing
departmental resources and staff assigned to monitor similar program."
The Department supports and encourages coordination among programs with
similar goals. Toward that end, the Secretary is considering additional
strategies for improving the communication between and coordination of
activities among these programs.
We have begun to address the third recommendation that ".the Secretary
of Education should consider data that DANTES collects on placement
offices' cost per hire ratios, or develop other measures of efficiency,
and take action when offices are deemed ineffective at helping
participants find employment." To help determine whether the allocation
of resources across the placement offices is efficient and appropriate,
the Department has developed an efficiency measure for the Troops-to-
Teachers program. That efficiency measure is the recruitment cost per
teacher of record. "Recruitment cost" is defined as all overhead costs
for the national headquarters and state offices of Troops-to-Teachers.
"Teacher of record" is defined as a Troops-to- Teachers participant who
is hired by an eligible school district. We have collected 2005 data
for this measure and are currently analyzing the data for the purpose
of making recommendations to DANTES about the best use of resources
under the program. We expect this analysis to be completed by the end
of the current school year.
Thank you for taking the time to analyze and report on these issues. We
will use the findings and recommendations to improve our oversight
efforts regarding the Troops-to-Teachers program.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Christopher J. Doherty:
Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary:
Office of Innovation and improvement:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Marnie S. Shaul (202) 512-7215, ShaulM@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant Director), Joy Gambino (Analyst-in-
Charge), and Jeffrey W. Weinstein (Economist) managed all aspects of
the assignment. In addition, Avrum Ashery, Richard Burkard, Wilfred
Holloway, Mitch Karpman, Lynn Milan, John Mingus, Luann Moy, Mimi
Nguyen, Karen O'Conor, Jim Rebbe, and Tovah Rom made significant
contributions.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education's
Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification
Requirements. GAO-06-25. Washington, D.C: November 21, 2005.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO/AIMD-00-
21.3.1. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1999.
Troops to Teachers: Program Helped Address Teacher Shortages. GAO-01-
567. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Troops to Teachers: Program Helped Address Teacher Shortages,
GAO-01-567 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001).
[2] A baccalaureate or advanced degree is not required of those
applying for assistance as a vocational or technical teacher. Instead,
these applicants must have the equivalent of 1 year of college and 6
years or more of military experience in a related field, or meet the
certification requirements for a vocational education teacher in the
state in which the applicant wishes to work.
[3] Generally, a highly qualified teacher is defined as a teacher who
(1) has obtained full state certification as a teacher or passed the
state teacher licensing exam and holds a license to teach in the state;
(2) holds a minimum of a bachelor‘s degree; and (3) has demonstrated
subject-matter competency in each of the academic subjects in which the
teacher teaches, in a manner determined by the state and in compliance
with § 9101(23) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
[4] Two additional offices, New York and West Virginia, have small-
scale operations and, as a result, do not receive any program funding.
[5] Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the
largest source of federal funding to improve the educational
achievement of children at risk. See GAO, Disadvantaged Students:
Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved, GAO-03-377 (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 28, 2003).
[6] While 3,875 program participants provided documentation of their
teaching experiences between the enactment of NCLBA and school year
2004-2005, those not receiving funding were not required to provide
such documentation. Thus, program participants who did not receive
funding and did not voluntarily provide documentation of employment are
not included in this total.
[7] Education defines beginning, or new, teachers as those with 3 or
fewer years of experience.
[8] DOD‘s stop loss program enables the military to prevent service
members from leaving active duty after they have completed their
obligations.
[9] C. Emily Feistritzer, National Center for Education Information,
Profile of Troops to Teachers, August 24, 2005.
[10] DANTES‘ data includes hiring in Washington, D.C.; Puerto Rico; and
schools overseas.
[11] This includes those who received both a stipend and a bonus in
their financial assistance package.
[12] Of the remaining 176 hired stipend recipients, 36 reported finding
teaching positions in a district that was not designated as high-need,
and 140 did not report district information. According to DANTES
officials, they are in contact with individuals from whom repayment is
required.
[13] Teachers who received funding prior to the implementation of the
rule will not lose their financial assistance, but teachers hired after
implementation”September 15, 2005”will not be eligible for a bonus if
the districts in which they teach do not meet the eligibility
criteria.
[14] The actual number of qualifying schools nationwide cannot be
determined because percentages of students served under IDEA are
tracked at the district level rather than at the school-house level. As
a result, the characteristics of individual schools cannot be assessed.
[15] National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education
Statistics, 2004. U.S. Department of Education.
[16] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[17] According to program officials, obligations for financial
assistance each year are generally expended over a 3-year period
because individuals receive their bonus payments in installments.
[18] The Transition to Teaching Program did not hold a competition for
award year 2003.
[19] The DANTES dataset includes information on teaching experiences
for up to 12 years from the first placement year. However, this
information is not actively collected and is not reliable for measuring
retention rates beyond 3 years.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
