Higher Education
Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced Gao ID: GAO-03-6 December 11, 2002In 1998, Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom by improving training programs for prospective teachers and the qualifications of current teachers. This report focuses on two components of the legislation: one that provides grants and another, called the "accountability provisions," that requires collecting and reporting information on the quality of all teacher training programs and qualifications of current teachers.
The Department of Education has approved or awarded 123 grants to states and partnerships totaling over $460 million. Education awarded grants to applicants according to the legislation, but failed to maintain an effective system for communicating with grantees. Grantees have used funds for activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or state. While HEA allows many activities to be funded under broad program goals outlined in the legislation, most grantees have focused their efforts on reforming requirements for teachers, providing professional development to current teachers, and recruiting new teachers. The extent to which these activities will affect the quality of teaching in the classroom will be difficult to determine because Education does not have a systematic approach to evaluate all grant activities. The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did not allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each state. The accountability provisions require all institutions that enroll students who receive federal student financial assistance and train teachers to provide information to their states on their teacher training programs and program graduates. In order to facilitate the collection of this information, HEA required Education to develop definitions for terms and uniform reporting methods. Education officials told GAO that they made significant efforts to define these terms so that the terms reflected the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures, and data availability. In doing so, Education defined some terms broadly. The officials also told GAO that this gave states and institutions discretion to interpret some terms as they wished, resulting in the collection and reporting of information that was not uniform and thereby making it difficult to assess accountability.
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-03-6, Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-6
entitled 'Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher
Training, but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced' which
was released on December 11, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
December 2002:
Higher Education:
Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Reporting on These
Activities Could Be Enhanced:
GAO-03-6:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-6, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, and Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to enhance
the quality of teaching in the classroom by improving training programs
for prospective teachers and the qualifications of current teachers.
This report focuses on two components of the legislation: one that
provides grants and another, called the ’accountability provisions,“
that requires collecting and reporting information on the quality of
all teacher training programs and qualifications of current teachers.
What GAO Found:
The Department of Education has approved or awarded 123 grants to
states
and partnerships totaling over $460 million. Education awarded grants
to
applicants according to the legislation, but failed to maintain an
effective system for communicating with grantees. Grantees have used
funds
for activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or
state. While HEA allows many activities to be funded under broad
program
goals outlined in the legislation, most grantees have focused their
efforts on reforming requirements for teachers, providing professional
development to current teachers, and recruiting new teachers. The
extent
to which these activities will affect the quality of teaching in the
classroom will be difficult to determine because Education does not
have
a systematic approach to evaluate all grant activities.
The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did
not
allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher training
programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each state. The
accountability provisions require all institutions that enroll students
who receive federal student financial assistance and train teachers to
provide information to their states on their teacher training programs
and program graduates. In order to facilitate the collection of this
information, HEA required Education to develop definitions for terms
and
uniform reporting methods. Education officials told GAO that they made
significant efforts to define these terms so that the terms reflected
the
uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures,
and
data availability. In doing so, Education defined some terms broadly.
The officials also told GAO that this gave states and institutions
discretion to interpret some terms as they wished, resulting in the
collection and reporting of information that was not uniform and
thereby
making it difficult to assess accountability.
Highlights Figure:
[See PDF for image]
[End of image]
What GAO Recommends:
In order to effectively manage the grant program, GAO recommends that
the
Secretary of Education:
* further develop and maintain a system for regularly communicating
program
information with grantees and:
* establish a systematic approach for evaluating all grant activities.
To improve the information collected under the accountability
provisions,
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education:
* define key terms from the legislation clearly and:
* allow sufficient time for the verification of the required
information.
GAO‘s report also includes a matter for consideration by the Congress.
In commenting on a draft of GAO‘s report, Education generally agreed
with
the findings.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-6
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the
link above. For more information, contact Cornelia M. Ashby (202-512-
8403).
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Education Awarded Grants in Accordance with Legislative Requirements,
but Failed to Maintain an Effective System for Communicating with
Grantees:
Grantees Used Funds for a Range of Activities, but Their Effectiveness
Will Be Difficult to Determine:
The Extent to Which Grant Activities Will Affect the Quality of
Teaching in the Classroom Will Be Difficult to Determine:
Information Collected and Reported for the Accountability Provisions
Does Not Accurately Portray the Quality of Teacher Training Programs
And the Qualifications of Teachers:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher
Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act:
Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities:
Appendix IV: Accountability Provision Description:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Grant Type, Funding Amounts, and Activities of Grantees We
Visited:
Table 2: Legislative Requirements for Annual Reports:
Table 3: Selected Definitions for the Collection of Accountability
Provision Information:
Figures:
Figure 1: Diagram of an Eligible Partnership:
Figure 2: Allocation of Grant Funds Available by Legislation:
Figure 3: Grant Applications Reviewed and Awarded the First Year of
Grant Funding--1999:
Figure 4: Range of Funding for Grants by Grant Type:
Figure 5: States That Have Not Yet Received a State Grant:
Figure 6: Early Exposure to Teaching is a Recruitment Strategy Used by
Several Grantees:
Figure 7: Criteria for Waiver Calculations Varies among Three
Neighboring States:
Abbreviations:
HEAHigher Education Act:
SITE SUPPORTSchool Immersion Teacher Education and School
University Partnership to Prepare Outstanding
and Responsive Teachers:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 11, 2002:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate:
The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives:
The Department of Education‘s National Center for Education Statistics
recently reported that most teacher training programs leave new
teachers feeling unprepared for the classroom. Because recent research
reports that teachers are the most important factor in increasing
student achievement, the quality of teacher training is critical. In
1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to enhance
the quality of teaching in the classroom by improving training programs
for prospective teachers and the qualifications of current teachers.
This legislation is scheduled for reauthorization in 2003.
This report focuses on two components of the legislation: one that
provides grants and another, called the ’accountability provisions,“
that requires collecting and reporting information on the quality of
teacher training programs and qualifications of current teachers. The
grants are given on a competitive basis to states or partnerships
between higher education institutions and local school districts to
fund activities that recruit and prepare new teachers, and develop and
retain current teachers. Since 1998, Education has awarded or approved
123 grants to states[Footnote 1] and partnerships totaling over $460
million. The accountability provisions require all institutions that
enroll students who receive federal student financial assistance and
train teachers to provide information to their states on their teacher
training programs and program graduates. States are required to
consolidate some of this information into a report, supplement it with
additional statewide education data, and submit it to Education. Using
this information, Education is required to report annually to the
Congress on the nationwide quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications of current teachers.
To prepare for the reauthorization of this legislation, the Congress
wants to know whether the grants and reporting requirements are
contributing to improving the quality of teaching in the classroom.
This report addresses the following issues:
* how Education awarded grants and administered the grant program;
* what activities grantees funded and what results can be associated
with these activities; and:
* whether the information collected under the accountability provisions
allows for an accurate report on the quality of teacher training
programs and the qualifications of current teachers.
* In October 2002, we reported our preliminary results to the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, House Committee on
Education and the Workforce.[Footnote 2]
To learn about the implementation of this legislation, we surveyed
91 grantees, the total at the time of our survey, and conducted 33 site
visits[Footnote 3] in 11 states--California, Connecticut, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Grantees in these states were selected
because they represented almost half of the total grant funding at the
time of our site visits, were providing a range of grant activities,
and were geographically dispersed. We also interviewed Education
officials and experts on teaching and teacher training. In addition, we
reviewed relevant literature, regulations, and department documents. We
conducted our work between December 2001 and November 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For
details on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The Department of Education awarded grants to applicants in accordance
with legislative requirements, but the new office set up to administer
the grant program failed to maintain an effective system for
communicating with grantees. The legislation outlined certain program
requirements, including that states may receive a state grant only
once, grant selection must be competitive, 45 percent of total grant
funding be available for state grants, and that Education shall broadly
disseminate information on successful and unsuccessful practices.
However, the implementation of the grant program was left to Education.
The department established the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office
to determine the procedures by which the grants were to be awarded and
administered. To ensure that the grants were awarded competitively, the
office developed grant applications, advertised the grant opportunity
to potential applicants, provided technical assistance to applicants,
and convened panels to judge the applications. Once the grants were
awarded, the office was charged with administering the grant program
and, to do so, it developed some operating procedures for the program,
such as the annual reporting mechanisms. However, we found that
Education failed to maintain an effective system for communicating with
grantees about reporting deadlines and successful and unsuccessful
practices. Furthermore, 45 of 59 eligible states have already been
approved for or awarded state grants, and because the authorizing
legislation specifically requires that these grants can only be awarded
once, only 14 states will be eligible to receive future state grants
under the current authorizing legislation. Given this, and because the
legislation requires that 45 percent of total grant funding be
available for state grants, it is possible that some funding the
Congress appropriates for teacher quality enhancement grants will
remain unspent.
Grantees are using the flexibility the grant program allows to support
activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or
state, but the extent to which these activities will affect the quality
of teaching in the classroom will be difficult to determine. While the
legislation allows many activities to be funded, most grantees have
focused their efforts on reforming requirements for teachers, providing
professional development to current teachers, and recruiting new
teachers. However, within these general areas, grantees‘ efforts
varied. For example, to address teacher shortages, the Los Angeles
Unified School District targeted high school students and developed a
program to attract young people to the field of teaching; whereas
Southwest Texas State University, another grantee addressing teacher
shortages, offered scholarships to mid-career professionals. The extent
to which these activities will affect the quality of teaching in the
classroom will be difficult to determine because Education does not
have a systematic approach to evaluate all grant activities.
The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did
not allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher
training programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each
state. The accountability provisions require all institutions that
enroll students who receive federal student financial assistance and
train teachers--not just those institutions receiving teacher quality
enhancement grants--to provide information to their states on their
teacher training programs and program graduates. In order to facilitate
the collection of this information, the legislation required Education
to develop definitions for key terms and uniform reporting methods,
including the definitions for the consistent reporting of ’pass rates“-
-the percentage of all graduates of a teacher training program who pass
the state teacher certification examinations. Education officials told
us that they made significant efforts to define these terms so that the
terms reflected the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state
reporting procedures, and data availability. In doing so, Education
defined some terms broadly. Education officials told us that this gave
states and institutions discretion to interpret some terms as they
wished, resulting in the collection and reporting of information that
was not uniform and thereby making it difficult to assess
accountability. In addition, time spent verifying the information from
states and institutions was limited, which contributed to the inclusion
of inaccurate information in Education‘s report to the Congress.
In this report, we make recommendations to the Secretary of Education
to further develop and maintain an effective system for communicating
with grantees and to evaluate all grant activities. To improve the
information collected as part of the accountability provisions, we also
recommend that the Secretary provide clear definitions of terms
associated with the collection of required information and allow
sufficient time for verification of information collected.
Additionally, if the Congress decides to fund these grants as part of
the reauthorization of HEA, it may want to clarify whether all 59
states will be eligible for future state grant funding or whether
eligibility would be limited to only those states that have not
previously received a state grant.
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of
Education generally agreed with the reported findings. Education did
state, however, that our report does not acknowledge the change of
administration in 2001 and that it should identify the changes
implemented by the current administration to address deficiencies.
While our work covered questions and found problems with implementation
under the current and prior administrations, a comparison of management
under the two administrations is not within the scope of our work.
Education also provided technical comments, which were incorporated
when appropriate.
Background:
Over $460 million has been awarded or approved in grants under the
1998 HEA amendments to enhance the quality of teacher training programs
and the qualifications of current teachers. The legislation requires
that states may receive a state grant only once and that the grants
must be competitively awarded. Three types of grants were made
available:
State grants are available for states to implement activities to
improve teacher quality in their states.
Partnership grants are available to eligible partners to improve
teacher quality through collaborative activities. Eligible
partnerships must include at least three partners--teacher training
programs, colleges of Arts and Sciences, and eligible local school
districts.[Footnote 4] Partnerships may also include other groups, such
as state educational agencies, businesses and nonprofit educational
organizations as partners (see fig. 1).
Recruitment grants are available to states or partnerships to use their
funding for activities to help recruit teachers.
Figure 1: Diagram of an Eligible Partnership:
[See PDF for image]
[End of image]
Because the legislation sets out broad program goals for which grant
funds can be used--such as reforming state teacher certification
requirements and recruiting new teachers--it allows grantees to support
activities under these program goals they believe will improve teaching
in their locality or state. The grants are flexible enough to allow
grantees to use the funding for a wide range of activities aimed at
improving the quality of teaching in the classroom. For example,
grantees are allowed to provide scholarships and stipends as a
recruitment effort for teacher candidates as well as provide laptop
computers to new teachers in order to integrate technology into the
classroom. Figure 2 shows the funding allocation provided by the
legislation for the three types of grants.
Figure 2: Allocation of Grant Funds Available by Legislation:
[See PDF for image]
[End of image]
The legislation requires monitoring and evaluation of activities
supported by these grants. Each grantee is required to submit an annual
report to Education on its progress toward meeting program goals
specified in the legislation, which must include performance objectives
and measures to determine if grant activities were successful. The
legislation also required Education to evaluate all grant activities
and to broadly disseminate information about successful and
unsuccessful practices.
In addition to the grants, the 1998 HEA amendments include an annual
reporting requirement on the quality of teacher training programs and
the qualifications of current teachers. This component of the
legislation, called the ’accountability provisions,“ requires an annual
three-stage process to collect and report information in a uniform and
comprehensible manner. The reporting requirements under the
accountability provisions mandated, for the first time, that colleges
and universities who train teachers be held accountable for how well
they prepared teachers. The legislation requires that Education, in
consultation with states and teacher training institutions, develop
definitions for key terms--including definitions for the consistent
reporting of pass rates--and uniform reporting methods related to the
performance of teacher training programs. Education officials told us
that they made significant efforts to define key terms so that the
terms reflected the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state
reporting procedures, and data availability.
In the first stage, nearly every institution that prepares teachers--
not just those receiving teacher quality enhancement grants--is
required to collect and report specific information to its state,
including the pass rate of the institution‘s graduates on state teacher
certification examinations. Then in the second stage, states are
required to report to Education the pass rate information institutions
reported in the first stage, supplemented with additional statewide
information, including a description of state certification
examinations and the extent to which teachers in the state are allowed
to teach without being fully certified. The third and final stage is
comprised of a report to the Congress from the Secretary of Education
on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of
current teachers. The first round of institutional reports were
submitted to states in April 2001; subsequently, state reports were
submitted to Education in October 2001. Using this information, the
Secretary of Education reported to the Congress in June 2002.[Footnote
5]
How one determines the quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications of current teachers has long been debated. The debate is
currently centered on the best way to train teachers: the traditional
approach, which typically includes extensive courses in subject matter
and pedagogy,[Footnote 6] or alternative training methods that either
(1) accelerate the process of training teachers by reducing courses in
pedagogy or (2) allow uncertified teachers to teach while receiving
their training at night or on weekends. This debate is further
complicated because the quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications for current teachers varies by state. Every state sets
its own requirements for teacher certification, such as which
certification examination(s)[Footnote 7] a teacher candidate must take,
what score is considered passing on this examination, and how many
hours teacher candidates must spend student teaching--practice teaching
during their teacher preparation program--in order to become a fully
certified teacher in that state. In this way, a teacher who is fully
certified in one state may not meet the qualifications for
certification in another state. For example, in Virginia, Minnesota and
Mississippi, teacher candidates are required to take the same test to
be certified to teach high school mathematics. But teacher candidates
in Virginia must score 178 (50th percentile of all test takers) to pass
the examination, whereas in Minnesota and Mississippi teacher
candidates must score 169 (20th percentile of all test takers).
While the 1998 HEA amendments provided grants and reporting
requirements to improve the quality of teacher training programs and
the qualifications of teachers, it was not until the recent No Child
Left Behind Act that the Congress defined a highly qualified
teacher.[Footnote 8] For the purposes of that act, the legislation
defines highly qualified teachers as those who demonstrate competence
in each subject they teach, hold bachelors degrees, and are fully
certified to teach in their state. See appendix II for more information
on HEA and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Education Awarded Grants in Accordance with Legislative Requirements,
but Failed to Maintain an Effective System for Communicating with
Grantees:
Education awarded grants to applicants according to the legislation but
failed to maintain an effective system for communicating with grantees.
The legislation outlined certain program requirements, such as the
requirement that states may receive a state grant only once, that
45 percent of total grant funding be available for state grants, and
that Education shall broadly disseminate information on successful and
unsuccessful practices. However, it left the implementation of the
grant program to Education. The department established the Teacher
Quality Enhancement Grant Office to determine the procedures by which
the grants were to be awarded and administered. Once the grants were
awarded, the office was charged with administering the grant program
and, to do so, it developed some operating procedures for the program.
However, Education failed to maintain an effective system for
communicating with grantees about reporting deadlines and successful
and unsuccessful practices.
New Office Awarded Grants According to the Legislation:
Soon after the legislation was passed in 1998, Education created a new
office, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office, that set the
grant program in motion by developing applications, advertising the
grant opportunities, and convening technical review sessions for
potential applicants. When the office was first established, it
conducted focus groups with representatives from different areas--
states, local school districts, institutions that train teachers, and
community groups--to decide how to implement the legislation. Education
officials used this input to develop applications for the state,
partnership, and recruitment grants. Education officials advertised the
grants and provided opportunities for potential applicants to receive
technical assistance on the application procedures. These technical
assistance sessions, which grantees told us were helpful, were offered
across the country and allowed Education officials to answer questions
and explain the criteria by which applications would be judged.
In accordance with the legislation, the office provided funding to
state agencies and partnerships between higher education institutions
and local school districts with three types of grants--state,
partnership, and recruitment--through a competitive process. The
legislation required Education to use peer reviewers to determine which
applicants would receive grant funding. The office convened panels of
peer reviewers to judge the applications. Each peer review panel
consisted of representatives from local school districts, states,
community groups, teacher training programs, and colleges of Arts and
Sciences. In 1999, the first year grants were available, the peer
review panel reviewed 371 applications: 41 for state grants, 222 for
partnership grants, and 108 for recruitment grants. Of these
applications, the office awarded 24 state grants, 25 partnership
grants, and 28 recruitment grants (see fig. 3). Since then an
additional 21 state, 8 partnership, and 17 recruitment grants have been
awarded or approved using the same process.[Footnote 9] Between 1999
and 2002, the office awarded or approved a total of 123
grants.[Footnote 10]
Figure 3: Grant Applications Reviewed and Awarded the First Year of
Grant Funding--1999:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
Office.
[End of image]
Grant duration and funding amount vary depending on the type of grant.
According to the legislation, grants can be awarded to states and
partnerships only once, though the funding is dispersed over several
years.[Footnote 11] State and recruitment grantees receive funding for
three years, whereas partnership grantees receive funding for up to
five years.
State grants ranged from just over $500,000 awarded to Idaho to
$13.5 million awarded to Virginia. Partnership grant awards ranged from
$1.2 million awarded to Graceland University in Iowa to over $13.2
million awarded to Arizona State University. Recruitment grants ranged
from $523,890 awarded to Norfolk State University to $1.4 million
awarded to the San Diego University Foundation (see fig. 4). When we
divided total grant awards by the duration of the grants, the average
annual award for state grants ($1.6 million) was larger than the
average annual award for partnership grants ($1.2 million), and the
average annual award for recruitment grants ($340,054) was the
smallest.
Figure 4: Range of Funding for Grants by Grant Type:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
Office.
[End of image]
Forty-five of 59 eligible states have already been approved for or
awarded state grants, and because the legislation specifically requires
that these grants can only be awarded once, only 14 states will be
eligible to receive future state grants under the current authorizing
legislation (see fig. 5). Given this, and because the legislation
requires that 45 percent of total grant funding be available for state
grants, it is possible that some funding the Congress appropriates for
teacher quality enhancement grants will remain unspent.
Figure 5: States That Have Not Yet Received a State Grant:
[See PDF for image]
[End of image]
Education Failed to Maintain an Effective System for Communicating with
Grantees:
Grantees reported that Education failed to maintain an effective system
for communicating with them about reporting deadlines and successful
and unsuccessful practices. Communication from Education to the
grantees, specifically the frequency and accuracy of Education‘s
efforts, was problematic. Education officials and grantees reported
that in the beginning of the grant program, staff assigned to assist
grantees communicated with them regularly, informing them of reporting
deadlines and answering specific questions related to the grant
program. However, the office experienced several disruptions in staff
and management, and grantees told us that this level of communication
with Education was not maintained. Since the grant program began 4
years ago, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office has had five
different managers, and staff in the office has fallen from nine to
two. Several officials at Education told us that the constant changes
in the office led to a lack of program continuity, which affected the
communication with grantees. Almost 75 percent of the grantees
reported that the management and staff turnover at Education had been
a problem.
In addition, grantees reported that some information received from
Education was inaccurate, which led to additional work for the grantees
when they were eventually informed of the right information. For
example, grantees needed to be informed of what information to include
in their required annual report and when to submit it to Education.
Many grantees we visited told us that because Education failed to
maintain an effective system of communicating this information, they
were given incorrect information on what data to include in their
annual reports, making it necessary for the grantee to collect and
analyze data twice.
Further, the legislation requires Education to broadly disseminate
information about successful and unsuccessful practices, but we found
that Education did not adequately carry out this requirement. Grantees
told us that having access to information about successful and
unsuccessful practices would save them time and money in administering
their grants. Although a national conference of grantees has been held
each year since the grants began and some grantees have been able to
participate in a few multigrantee telephone conference calls, grantees
reported that these efforts did not adequately allow them to share
ideas on successful and unsuccessful practices. For example, some
grantees told us that requiring teacher candidates to attend classes on
the weekends was an unsuccessful strategy, because few candidates could
attend at that time. However, because Education did not broadly
disseminate this information, several grantees told us that they wasted
time and money learning this on their own by offering Saturday courses
only to have them sparsely attended.
Grantees Used Funds for a Range of Activities, but Their Effectiveness
Will Be Difficult to Determine:
Grantees are using the flexibility the grant program allows to support
activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or
state, but no system is in place to determine if these activities will
affect the quality of teaching in the classroom. While the legislation
allows many activities to be funded under broad program goals outlined
in HEA, most grantees have focused their efforts on reforming
requirements for teachers, providing professional development to
current teachers, and recruiting new teachers. The extent to which
these activities will affect the quality of teaching in the classroom
will be difficult to determine because Education does not have a
systematic approach to evaluate all grant activities.
Grantees Used Funds for a Variety of Activities:
The legislation outlines broad program goals for improving the quality
of teaching with grant funds but provides grantees with the flexibility
in deciding the most suitable approach for improving teaching. Our
survey and site visits showed that most grantees focused on three types
of activities: (1) reforming requirements for teachers, (2) providing
professional development and support for current teachers, and
(3) recruiting new teachers. Grantees could focus on only one activity,
but all grantees responding to our survey focused on a combination of
activities. In our survey, we found that 85 percent of the respondents
were using their grant funds to reform the requirements for teachers,
85 percent of the respondents were using their grant funds for
professional development and support for current teachers, and 72
percent of the respondents were using their grant funds for recruitment
efforts. Table 1 shows the activities grantees we visited told us they
provided.
Table 1: Grant Type, Funding Amounts, and Activities of Grantees We
Visited:
Grant awarded to: State grants; Amount funded: [Empty]; Reforming
requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing;
Amount funded: $10,588,598; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Connecticut State Department of Education; Amount
funded: $1,764,447; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Georgia Board of Regents; Amount funded: $9,949,480;
Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Illinois Board of Higher Education; Amount funded:
$4,068,086; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Maryland State Department of Education; Amount
funded: $5,632,049; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Massachusetts Department of Education; Amount funded:
$3,524,149; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction;
Amount funded: $8,379,462; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education; Amount funded: $3,358,502; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Tennessee Department of Education; Amount funded:
$1,745,465; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Texas State Board for Teacher Certification; Amount
funded: $10,751,154; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; Amount
funded: $3,283,720; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Partnership grants; Amount funded: [Empty]; Reforming
requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Northern California Partnership Grant (California
State University-Sacramento); Amount funded: $1,277,426; Reforming
requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program
(GSTEP); (University of Georgia); Amount funded: $6,492,635; Reforming
requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Illinois Teacher Education Partnership (National
Louis University); Amount funded: $6,308,245; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Illinois Professional Learners‘ Partnership (Illinois
State University); Amount funded: $12,611,607; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher
Quality; (Western Kentucky University); Amount funded: $5,711,847;
Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Project SITE SUPPORT
(The Johns Hopkins University); Amount funded: $12,660,901; Reforming
requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Project Learning in Communities (LINC) (University
System of Maryland); Amount funded: $4,187,912; Reforming requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X;
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and
Student Achievement
(Boston College); Amount funded: $7,168,926; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Teaching Matters, Quality Counts; (North Carolina
Central University); Amount funded: $3,781,980; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom
Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT)
(University of Tennessee-Chattanooga); Amount funded: $3,270,959;
Reforming requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X;
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Project Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology
(CoMeT); (Our Lady of the Lake University); Amount funded: $5,604,478;
Reforming requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X;
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Institute for School-University Partnerships (Texas
A&M University); Amount funded: $11,623,979; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Amount funded:
$8,456,364; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new
teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Recruitment grants; Amount funded: [Empty]; Reforming
requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Los Angeles Unified School District; Amount funded:
$956,261; Reforming requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Oakland Unified School District; Amount funded:
$1,026,168; Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: San Diego State University Foundation; Amount funded:
$1,412,828; Reforming requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: University of California--Los Angeles
(University of California Regents Office); Amount funded: $1,213,295;
Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Connecticut State Department of Education; Amount
funded: $938,428; Reforming requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Teacher Recruitment Initiative in Tennessee (TRI-IT!)
(University of Tennessee-Chattanooga); Amount funded: $1,193,297;
Reforming requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X;
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Teacher Recruitment and Induction Project (TRIP);
(Southwest Texas State University); Amount funded: $1,051,241;
Reforming requirements
for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X;
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Grant awarded to: Milwaukee Public Schools; Amount funded: $844,357;
Reforming requirements
for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty];
Recruiting new teachers: X.
Note: Shading is used to show how the grants differ.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of grant activities from site visits and
documents from the U.S. Department of Education.
[End of table]
Reforming Requirements for Teachers:
Most grantees reported using their funds to reform requirements for
teachers. Since every state sets its own requirements for teacher
certification, such as how many hours a teacher candidate must spend
student teaching to become a fully certified teacher in that state,
some state grantees reported using their funds to reform the
certification requirements for teachers in their state. Grantees also
reported using their funds to allow teacher training programs and
colleges of Arts and Sciences to collaborate with local school
districts to reform the requirements for teacher training programs to
ensure that teacher candidates are trained appropriately. Some examples
of these reforms include the following:
* Requirements for teacher certification--During our site visits, we
found that many state grantees are reforming their state certification
requirements to ensure that new teachers have the necessary teaching
skills and knowledge in the subject areas in which they will teach. For
example, Illinois does not currently have a separate middle school
(grades 5 through 9) certification. Most middle school teachers in
Illinois are instead certified to teach elementary or high school.
However, recognizing that this does not adequately address the
preparation needs of middle school teachers, state officials intend to
use the grant to create a new certification for middle school teachers.
This new certification would require middle school teachers to
demonstrate specialized knowledge on how to best instruct adolescents.
* Requirements for teacher training programs--To improve the quality of
teachers, states reported reforming their requirements for teacher
training programs. For example, Wisconsin used some of its grant funds
to develop a strategy to hold institutions accountable for the quality
of the preparation they provide their teacher candidates. This strategy
ensured that teacher candidates in every teacher training program
receive instruction that prepares them to meet state
standards.[Footnote 12] To begin this effort, the state developed a
handbook of standards, procedures, and policies for teacher training
programs. In addition, the state plans to enforce these requirements by
conducting a thorough review of each teacher training program.
Wisconsin and other states we visited are also ensuring that training
provided through alternative routes--routes to certification that are
not provided by regular teacher training programs--are meeting similar
requirements.
* Requirements for teacher candidates--Many teacher training programs
reported that they were reforming the requirements for teacher
candidates by revising the required coursework. For example, the grant
officials from the Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and
Student Achievement reported that they wanted to provide teacher
candidates with exposure to schools earlier than was typical in
training programs. To do so, they revised their curriculum so that some
of their required teacher preparation courses were set in public
schools, giving teacher candidates an opportunity to experience the
school environment prior to student teaching. Grant officials expressed
that this strategy would increase the chances that these teachers would
be successful because the teachers would be better prepared for the
realities of the classroom.
Providing Professional Development and Support for Current Teachers:
Many grantees reported having high teacher turnover and saw a need for
providing professional development and other support in order to retain
current teachers. The primary goal of professional development
activities is to provide training and support for current teachers with
the intention of improving their skills and retaining them in the
classroom. Grantees used their funds for a variety of activities that
provided professional development and support, such as providing
coursework towards an advanced degree and assigning mentor teachers to
new teachers.
During our site visits, we found that mentoring was the most common
professional development activity. Of the 33 grant sites we visited,
23 grants were providing mentoring activities. Many of the grantees we
visited reported that mentoring programs are beneficial to the mentor
teacher as well as the new teacher. The mentor can coach the new
teacher on how to best instruct students and adjust to his or her job.
In return, a mentor teacher may benefit from additional training and
compensation. Some grantees used their funds to establish a mentor
training program to ensure that mentors had consistent guidance. For
example, Rhode Island used its grant funds to allow two experienced
teachers to tour the state to provide training to future mentor
teachers and help schools set up mentoring programs. Officials in Rhode
Island believed this was an effective way to ensure that new teachers
receive quality support.
Recruiting New Teachers:
Many grantees reported having a teacher shortage in their area and used
the grant funds to develop various teacher-recruiting programs. Of the
grant sites we visited, many grantees were using their funds to fill
teacher shortages in urban schools or to recruit new teachers from
nontraditional sources--mid-career professionals, community college
students, and middle and high school students.
The following are examples of grantees using their funds to fill
shortages in urban areas or to recruit new teachers from nontraditional
sources:
* Recruiting for urban school districts--Grantees that were
experiencing a teacher shortage in their urban schools often provided
various incentives for teacher candidates to commit to teaching in
urban environments. For example, ’Project SITE SUPPORT“[Footnote 13]
housed at the Johns Hopkins University recruits teacher candidates with
an undergraduate degree to teach in a local school district with a
critical need for teachers while, at the same time, earning their
masters in education. The program offers tuition assistance, and in
some cases, the district pays a full teacher salary. As part of the
terms of the stipend, teachers are required to continue teaching in the
local school district for 3 years after completing the program. Grant
officials told us that this program prepared teacher candidates for
teaching in an urban environment and makes it more likely that they
will remain in the profession.
* Recruiting mid-career professionals--Many grantees targeted mid-
career professionals by offering an accelerated teacher training
program. For example, the Teacher Recruitment and Induction Project at
Southwest Texas State University offered scholarships to mid-career
professionals to offset the cost of classes required for teacher
certification. The scholarships paid for a 1-year, full-time program
that results in teaching certificates and 18 hours of graduate level
credits for teacher candidates. Grantee officials told us that because
the grant covers the Austin, Texas, area--an area with many technology
organizations--they have been able to recruit highly skilled
individuals who can offer a variety of real-life applications to many
of the classes they teach.
* Recruiting from community colleges--Some grantees have used their
funds to recruit teacher candidates at community colleges. For example,
National Louis University, one of the largest teacher training
institutions in Illinois, has partnered with six community colleges
around the state of Illinois so that the community colleges can offer
training that was not previously available. The grant pays for a
University faculty member to teach on each of the community college
campuses. This program allows community colleges in smaller, rural
communities to provide teacher training without teacher candidates
incurring the cost of attending National Louis University--a large
private university. A grant program official told us that school
districts in these areas will have a greater chance of recruiting new
teachers trained at one of these community colleges because they were
most likely to be from that community.
* Recruiting middle and high school students--Other grantees target
middle and high school students. For example, the Los Angeles Unified
School District develops programs to attract high school students to
the field of teaching. The majority of its grant resources has been
used to fund a paid 6-week high school internship for students to work
in the classroom with a teacher.[Footnote 14] The high school intern
spends most days with a teacher in the classroom (see fig. 6). The
intern‘s activities could include helping the teacher correct papers
and plan activities. Once a week, interns have a class with a grant-
funded teacher on curriculum and lesson planning. The grant official
told us that the internship introduces younger people to teaching as a
profession and, therefore, may increase the chances that they will
become teachers in the future.
Figure 6: Early Exposure to Teaching is a Recruitment Strategy Used by
Several Grantees:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Department of Education archives.
[End of image]
The Extent to Which Grant Activities Will Affect the Quality of
Teaching in the Classroom Will Be Difficult to Determine:
The extent to which grant activities will affect the quality of
teaching in the classroom will be difficult to determine. Although the
legislation mandates that Education evaluate all grant activities, we
found that Education does not have a systematic approach to do so.
Education does have one study underway to evaluate some grant
activities; however, this study is limited to only one type of grant--
partnership grants. In addition, grantees told us that they were given
little guidance from Education on what types of information to collect
in order to determine the effects of their grant activities. Even
though Education has not determined the extent to which these
activities affect the quality of teaching in the classroom, grantees
told us that they have used grant funds to improve the quality of
teacher training programs and the qualifications of current teachers.
When the Congress amended HEA in 1998 to provide grants to states and
partnerships, it required that Education evaluate all activities funded
by the grants. Education began a study in 2000 of state and recruitment
grants awarded in 1999. However, this study was cancelled by Education
before it was completed, and no preliminary findings were released.
Education officials cited the change in the department‘s administration
when explaining why the evaluation was abandoned. Education has also
been conducting a 5-year study of some grants. Although this evaluation
is designed to take a comprehensive look at grant activities, it is
only looking at partnership grants awarded in 1999, making this study
too limited for its result to apply to all grant activities. Because
the grants last only 3 to
5 years, Education may have lost its only opportunity to collect the
necessary information to determine if some grant activities have
affected the quality of teaching in the classroom.
In addition, Education did not provide adequate guidance to grantees on
what types of information to collect in order to determine the results
of their grant activities. For example, in order to determine results,
a grantee would need to collect information before and after the
activity for the group benefiting, as well as for a comparison group.
Many grantees told us that they did not collect this information
because Education did not provide them guidance on what types of
information to collect. The legislation required grantees to submit an
annual report on their progress toward meeting the program‘s purposes-
-such as increased student achievement--and its goals, objectives, and
measures (see table 2). Education officials provided only limited
guidance--through brief descriptions in the application packet and
intermittent conversations with grantees that requested assistance--on
what information to include in the annual report. Thus, the information
that most grantees reported did not allow Education to adequately
determine the results of their grant activities.
Table 2: Legislative Requirements for Annual Reports:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO‘s analysis of HEA.
[End of image]
[End of table]
Even though Education has not determined the extent to which all grant
activities affect the quality of teaching in the classroom, grantees
told us that they have used grant funds to improve the quality of
teacher training programs and the qualifications of current teachers.
For example, some grantees have been able to increase the number of
teacher candidates served through their grant programs. Many grantees
also told us that the partnerships and alliances formed through the
grant program have had and will continue to have positive effects on
their ability to address the quality of teaching in the classroom. For
more information on grant activities, see appendix III.
Information Collected and Reported for the Accountability Provisions
Does Not Accurately Portray the Quality of Teacher Training Programs
And the Qualifications of Teachers:
The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did
not allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher
training programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each
state. The accountability provisions require all institutions that
enroll students who receive federal student financial assistance and
train teachers--not just those institutions receiving teacher quality
enhancement grants--to provide information to their states on their
teacher training programs and program graduates.[Footnote 15] In order
to facilitate the collection of this information, the legislation
required Education to develop definitions for key terms and uniform
reporting methods, including the definitions for the consistent
reporting of pass rates. Education officials told us that they made
significant efforts to define these terms so that the terms reflected
the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting
procedures, and data availability. In doing so, Education defined some
terms broadly. Education officials told us that this gave states and
institutions discretion to interpret some terms as they wished--
resulting in the collection and reporting of information that was not
uniform and thereby making it difficult to assess accountability. In
addition, time spent verifying the information from states and
institutions was limited. This limited verification led to the
inclusion of inaccurate information in Education‘s report to the
Congress.
The Definitions of Some Key Terms Allowed for Inconsistent Reporting:
Education defined some key terms broadly, resulting in inconsistent
reporting by states and institutions. The accountability provisions
required states and institutions to report information, such as the
percentage of an institution‘s graduates who pass the state
certification examination, also known as the pass rate. In order to
gather information on the pass rate, Education first needed to define
graduate. Education officials told us that in many teacher training
programs, candidates do not graduate with a degree in teacher training,
but rather receive a certificate. Therefore, Education did not define
graduate but rather created the term ’program completer“ to encompass
all those who met all the requirements of a state-approved teacher
preparation program. Table 3 explains our analysis of the information
HEA required to be collected, the way that Education defined selected
terms to collect the information, and the reporting implications of
Education‘s definitions. Our survey indicated that
41 percent of respondents found compliance with reporting requirements
a challenge due to ambiguous definitions.
Table 3: Selected Definitions for the Collection of Accountability
Provision Information:
Term: Graduate; Legislative requirements: To identify the percentage of
all graduates at a teacher training institution who successfully passed
the state certification examination(s).; Education‘s definition:
Education did not define the term graduate, but rather used the term
’program completer“ and defined it as someone who has met the
requirements of a state-approved, teacher-training program.; Reporting
implications: Some institutions only reported candidates who completed
all course work and passed the state certification examination. In
calculating the pass rate, these institutions did not include those
students who passed the course work but failed the examination. As a
result, these institutions reported a 100-percent pass rate, which is
not informative to the Congress or the public on the quality of the
teacher training programs at those institutions..
Term: Waiver; Legislative requirements: To identify the number of
teachers who are teaching without state certification.; Education‘s
definition: Any temporary or emergency permit, license, or other
authorization that permits an individual to teach in a public school
classroom without having received an initial certificate or license (as
defined by the state) from that state or any other state.; Reporting
implications: Some states defined an initial certificate or license so
broadly that it allowed them to report few or no teachers as teaching
on waivers..
Term: Alternative route to certification
or licensure; Legislative requirements: To identify a route to
certification that is not a regular teacher training program.;
Education‘s definition: As defined by the state.; Reporting
implications: Some states defined alternative route so narrowly that it
allowed them to report that few or no teachers had taken an alternative
route to certification..
Source: GAO‘s analysis of HEA, Department of Education regulations, and
state Title II reports.
[End of table]
Thus, using definitions provided by Education, states and institutions
could report information that made their programs seem more successful
than they might have been. Institutions could inflate their pass rate
by reporting only on those teacher candidates who completed all
coursework and passed the state teacher certification examination
without including any information on teacher candidates who completed
all coursework but failed the examination--thus ensuring a 100-percent
pass rate. During our review, we found that a few states and many
institutions are inflating their pass rates to 100-percent. For
instance, we found that in at least three state reports to Education,
every institution reported 100-percent pass rates. Those institutions
included in their calculations only those teacher candidates they
determined to be program completers--those who passed the state
certification examination and met the state‘s other requirements--
excluding those who failed the examination. While requiring teacher
candidates to pass the state certification examination as part of a
teacher training program is not a problem, in and of itself, reporting
on only those candidates who pass the test does not provide the basis
to assess the quality of teacher training programs. For example, some
institutions in Georgia reported 100-percent pass rates in their
institutional report to the state, and Georgia, in turn, included these
100-percent pass rates in its state report to Education. However, as
part of a state effort--separate from the federal accountability
provisions--to hold institutions accountable for how well they prepare
teachers, Georgia requires institutions to submit pass rates that
include those who fail the examination to the state each year. This
resulted in lower institutional pass rates than those included in the
report to Education but is a calculation closer to what the Congress
intended Education to collect as part of the accountability provisions.
In other instances, Education allowed states to define some key terms
from the legislation in a way that was applicable to their state
because of the variability in how states defined terms and collected
information. This allowed states to define terms so that they could
cast the quality of their teacher training programs and the
qualifications of their current teachers in the most positive light.
For example, the accountability provisions required that states report
on the number of teachers on waivers--defined by Education as those
teachers currently teaching without having received an initial
certificate or license. Because Education allowed each state to define
initial certificate or license for itself, each state reported
different information in its waiver count. Figure 7 presents
information from three neighboring states--Maryland, Virginia, and
Washington, D.C.--with different definitions of certification leading
to variations in who was included in their waiver count. The degree of
this variation from state to state is unknown. Thus, the data collected
for the Congress does not present an accurate account of teachers who
are not fully certified.
Figure 7: Criteria for Waiver Calculations Varies among Three
Neighboring States:
[See PDF for image]
[End of image]
The Data Collection Process Contributed to Inaccurate Information:
In addition to the problems with the definitions, the fact that the
information collected was not adequately verified led to the inclusion
of inaccurate information on the quality of teacher training programs
and the qualifications of current teachers. The contractor hired by
Education to collect the information allowed states to submit their
information in different computer formats. The contractor told us that
this was done to make the reporting process easier on the state
agencies. Once received, this information was put into a standard
format in order to report to the Congress. Although states were
required to certify the information they reported was accurate, errors
occurred because of the way the information was collected. Therefore,
it was even more important that the information be verified. However,
the contractor stated that because it did not have enough time to
verify the information from states and institutions, inaccurate
information was included in the report to the Congress. The contractor
stated that 2 to 3 months would have been sufficient to verify the
information submitted to Education. Because it was only given 3 weeks
to verify, analyze, and report the information, a thorough job could
not be done. Alternatively, an audit of the data that states submit
would replace the need for additional time for data verification, but
department officials told us that they lack the resources for such an
audit.
Additionally, it was not always obvious to the contractor which
information was inaccurate--for example, what a ’typical“ range of pass
rates might be--and the contractor acknowledged that this also led to
the inclusion of some inaccurate information. When we contacted eight
states to check the accuracy of the information, we found errors in the
information for three of these states. In addition, a recent study
found that the information collected from South Carolina was not
accurate.[Footnote 16] South Carolina reported that 5.4 percent of its
teachers were not fully certified but, according to this study, this
information--which was reported to Education--included only 57 of 86
school districts in the state.
Education officials told us that the data collection process has been
changed for the second round of collection of information. (For more
information on HEA‘s accountability provisions, see appendix IV.):
Conclusions:
In recognition of the importance of the quality of teaching in the
classroom, the Congress amended HEA to provide grant funds to improve
training programs for prospective teachers and the qualifications of
current teachers, but certain aspects of the administration of those
grant funds may make the legislation less effective than it could be.
For example, because Education has not always disseminated information
to grantees effectively, grantees without knowledge of successful ways
of enhancing the quality of teaching in the classroom might be wasting
valuable resources by duplicating unsuccessful efforts. In addition,
because Education does not have a system to thoroughly evaluate grant
activities--including providing guidance to grantees on the types of
information needed to determine effectiveness--information on what
activities improve the quality of teaching in the classroom will not be
available. Also, due to the lack of clearly defined key terms by
Education and adequate time for verification of data by its contractor,
the information Education collected and reported to the Congress under
the accountability provisions provided an inaccurate picture of the
quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of current
teachers.
Furthermore, 45 of 59 eligible states have already been approved for or
awarded state grants, and because the authorizing legislation
specifically requires that these grants can only be awarded once, only
14 states will be eligible to receive future state grants under the
current authorizing legislation. Given this, and because the
legislation requires that 45 percent of total grant funding be
available for state grants, it is possible that some funding the
Congress appropriates for teacher quality enhancement grants will
remain unspent.
Recommendations:
In order to effectively manage the grant program, we recommend that the
Secretary of Education further develop and maintain a system for
regularly communicating program information, such as reporting
deadlines and successful and unsuccessful practices.
To provide information about the effectiveness of grant activities, we
recommend that the Secretary of Education establish a systematic
approach for evaluating all grant activities, including providing
guidance to grantees on the types of information needed to determine
effectiveness.
To improve the information collected under the accountability
provisions, we recommend that the Secretary of Education:
* define key terms from the legislation clearly and:
* allow sufficient time for verification of the required information.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
If the Congress decides to continue funding teacher quality enhancement
grants in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it
might want to clarify whether all 59 states will be eligible for state
grant funding under the reauthorization or whether eligibility would be
limited to only those states that have not previously received a state
grant. If the Congress decides to limit eligibility to states that have
not previously received a state grant, it may want to consider changing
the funding allocation for state grants.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of
Education generally agreed with the findings presented in the report.
Education did state, however, that we do not acknowledge the change of
administration in 2001 and that our report should identify the changes
being implemented by the current administration to address
deficiencies. While our work covered questions and found problems with
implementation under the current and prior administrations, a
comparison of management under the two administrations is not within
the scope of our work. However, grantees reported that communication
continues to be a problem. For example, as we discuss in this report,
at the beginning of the grant program grantees‘ reported that they
received regular communication from Education, but that this level of
communication was not maintained due to Education‘s management and
staff turnover in recent years. Because Education‘s new efforts to
address deficiencies have just begun, it is too early to assess their
impact on operations.
With respect to the accuracy of the Title II accountability report,
Education noted one particular instance of state reporting error--
Maine‘s teacher certification information. According to Education, the
mistake was due to a third-party reporting error and not due to a lack
of time for data verification. However, we report on more widespread
problems of data reporting and verification. Among other things, we
found that when we contacted eight states to check the accuracy of the
Title II information, we found errors in the information for three of
these states--Maine was not one of the states contacted during this
review. Of the problems that we cited, additional time for data
verification would be needed to improve the accuracy of the information
reported to the Congress.
Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated when
appropriate. Education‘s comments appear in appendix V.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site
at http://www.gao.gov. Please call me at (202) 512-8403 if you or your
staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by Cornelia M. Ashby:
Cornelia M. Ashby
Director, Education, Workforce
and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To better understand whether the grants and reporting requirements are
contributing to improving the quality of teaching in the classroom, we
were asked to provide information on how the Higher Education Act has
been implemented. Specifically, we provide information on the
following: (1) how the Department of Education awarded grants and
administered the grant program, (2) what activities grantees funded and
what results can be associated with these activities, and (3) whether
the information collected under the accountability provisions allows
for an accurate report on the quality of teacher training programs and
the qualifications of current teachers.
We conducted 33 site visits in 11 states, which accounted for almost
50 percent of the total grant funding at the time of our review. We
visited California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wisconsin. Grantees in these states were selected because they provide
a range of grant activities and were geographically dispersed. At each
grantee, we interviewed grant officials to obtain comprehensive and
detailed information about how the grant program has been used to
promote the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications
of current teachers.
To learn about the implementation of these grants, we surveyed 91
grantees, the total at the time of our review. The response rate for
this survey was 87 percent. We also collected information on
Education‘s administration of the grants--specifically the monitoring,
evaluation, and communication efforts--through our survey, site visits,
and interviews with Education officials. We rounded out this
information with interviews with experts on teaching and teacher
training. The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted or in
the sources of information that are available to grantees can introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the
development of the questionnaires, the data collection, and the data
editing and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, we
pretested the questionnaire with a small number of grantees to refine
the survey instrument, and we called individual grantees, if necessary,
to clarify answers.
To determine if the information collected under the accountability
provisions allows for an accurate report on the quality of teacher
training programs and the qualifications of current teachers, we
interviewed officials from institutions and states who had collected
and reported information as a part of the accountability provisions.
Our survey gathered information from institutions and states on the
process of collecting and reporting accountability provisions
information. We also reviewed reports and other research related to the
accountability provisions. In addition, we interviewed teacher quality
experts and Education officials responsible for all phases of the
information collection, analysis, and reporting process.
[End of section]
We reviewed Title II of the Higher Education Act and analyzed guidance
pertinent to the program. This review provided the foundation from
which we analyzed the information collected. In conducting the data
collection, we relied primarily on the opinions of the officials we
interviewed and the data and supporting documents they provided. We
also reviewed, for internal consistency, the data that officials
provided us, and we sought clarification where needed. We conducted our
work between December 2001 and November 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher
Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO‘s analysis of Title II of the Higher Education Act and
Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act.
[End of image]
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities:
Grant awarded to: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing;
Amount funded: $10,588,598; Grant activities include: The California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing is using some of its funds to help
support the development of shorter teacher training programs. Some of
the grant funds are also being used to develop new requirements for
teacher training programs, providing them with assistance in making the
transition, and providing professional development to new teachers.;
Years funded: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Connecticut State Department of Education; Amount
funded: $1,764,447; Grant activities include: The Connecticut State
Department of Education is using its grant funds to reform the
certification requirements for teachers statewide and develop alternate
routes to certification for recruiting new people into the field of
teaching. They are able to provide scholarships, stipends, and
professional development to some participants.; Years funded: 1999-
2001.
Grant awarded to: Georgia Board of Regents; Amount funded: $9,949,480;
Grant activities include: The Georgia Board of Regents grant funds
provide universities and school districts with smaller subgrants. Among
other things, some of these subgrantees are using their grants to
attract academically talented high school students into teacher
training programs. Also, some are designing programs to attract mid-
career professionals into the field of teaching by offering courses at
convenient times and locations, and in some cases online. The grant is
also being used to reform requirements and provide professional
development for teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Illinois Board of Higher Education; Amount funded:
$4,068,086; Grant activities include: The Illinois Board of Higher
Education is using grant funds to develop preliminary requirements for
a middle school teaching certificate and is partnering with four
universities in the state that serve high-poverty students. The four
partner universities are redesigning their coursework to recruit and
better prepare teacher candidates for the middle grades.; Years funded:
2000-2002.
Grant awarded to: Maryland State Department of Education; Amount
funded: $5,632,049; Grant activities include: The Maryland State
Department of Education is using most of its funds to provide subgrants
to help teacher training programs implement new state requirements of
providing professional development to teacher candidates.; Years
funded: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Massachusetts Department of Education; Amount funded:
$3,524,149; Grant activities include: The Massachusetts Department of
Education is using its grant funds to create a database system that
tracks teachers who are prepared, licensed, and employed in
Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Department of Education is also
designing a mentor training program and reforming its requirements for
teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction;
Amount funded: $8,379,462; Grant activities include: The North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction is using its grant funds to implement
a new teacher training program for mid-career professionals. The
program begins with a full-time summer course, followed by seminars
that are conducted during the following school year. The grant is also
being used to develop new requirements and provide mentoring services
for beginning teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education; Amount funded: $3,358,502; Grant activities include: The
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is using
its grant funds to implement new requirements for teacher training
programs and provide technical assistance to teacher training programs
so that they will comply with the new state requirements. The funds are
also being used to develop a mentor training program and a professional
development demonstration site.; Years funded: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Tennessee Department of Education; Amount funded:
$1,745,465; Grant activities include: The Tennessee Department of
Education is using its funds to provide financial support to
universities so they can improve their teacher training programs by
partnering with a K-12 school. Grant funds are also helping to provide
mentors to new teachers and develop a tool-kit for school
administrators to learn how to provide professional development
opportunities in schools. The grant is also supporting the development
of a new alternate route to certification.; Years funded: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Texas State Board for Teacher Certification; Amount
funded: $10,751,154; Grant activities include: The Texas State Board
for Teacher Certification is using its grant funds to reform the
requirements and design a program that provides systematic support for
first and second year teachers. To do this, the board is developing an
array of models for providing support to new teachers and has
disseminated these models to the wider educational community. The board
is also providing some of the state‘s beginning teachers with support
teams.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; Amount
funded: $3,283,720; Grant activities include: The Wisconsin Department
of Public Instruction is using its funds to develop new requirements
for teacher training programs, an alternative certification model to
recruit new teachers that meets the same requirements as traditional
teacher training programs, and a statewide mentor-training model.;
Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Partnership grants; Amount funded: [Empty]; Grant
activities include: [Empty]; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: [Empty].
Amount funded: Grant awarded to Northern California Partnership Grant:
$1,277,426.
Grant awarded to: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program
(GSTEP); (University of Georgia); Amount funded: $6,492,635; Grant
activities include: GSTEP is a partnership among three universities and
11 school districts that aims to develop a six-year teacher training
experience. The six-year experience would consist of four years of
teacher training at a university program and two years of support and
supervision by university faculty after they become teachers.; Years
funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2004.
Grant awarded to: Illinois Teacher Education Partnership; (National
Louis University); Amount funded: $6,308,245; Grant activities include:
Illinois Teacher Education Partnership is a partnership of 10 school
districts, six community colleges, and National Louis University to
bring teacher-training programs to three underserved regions in
Illinois. Classes are taught by National Louis faculty in local
community colleges during evening and weekend hours to accommodate
working students‘ schedules. Illinois Teacher Education Partnership is
also using funds to provide professional development for teachers.;
Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2004.
Grant awarded to: Illinois Professional Learners‘ Partnership;
(Illinois State University); Amount funded: $12,611,607; Grant
activities include: The Illinois Professional Learners Partnership
consists of representatives from universities, community colleges,
school districts, business partners, and other educational agencies.
The partnership is focusing its efforts on improving the quantity and
quality of beginning teachers in schools that had a teacher shortage by
implementing various activities at each partner university, including
re-designing the teacher training curriculum and providing support for
new teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-
2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.
Grant awarded to: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher
Quality; (Western Kentucky University); Amount funded: $5,711,847;
Grant activities include: The Renaissance Partnership for Improving
Teacher Quality is an initiative by 11 teacher training programs in 10
states to improve the quality of their graduates and teachers in local
partner schools by focusing attention on P-12 student learning. The
partnership is focusing on seven activities, such as mentoring teacher
candidates and requiring teacher candidates to provide work samples as
evidence of their classroom abilities.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2003.
Grant awarded to: Project SITE SUPPORT; (The Johns Hopkins University);
Amount funded: $12,660,901; Grant activities include: Project SITE
SUPPORT is a partnership among several school districts and three
universities that are working together to recruit, prepare, support,
and retain new teachers to meet the diverse learning needs of K-12
students in high-need urban schools.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2003.
Grant awarded to: Project Learning in Communities (LINC); (University
System of Maryland); Amount funded: $4,187,912; Grant activities
include: The Project LINC grant program is focusing its efforts in
three areas: mentoring new teachers, partnering its teacher preparation
program with local schools for professional development, and providing
technology. This project is also funding some stipends and paid
internships.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-
2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2004.
Grant awarded to: Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and
Student Achievement; (Boston College); Amount funded: $7,168,926; Grant
activities include: The Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and
Student Achievement is partnering with seven universities and public
schools in three cities around the state in an effort to provide
teachers with the skills and knowledge they require in order to be
successful educators in Massachusetts‘ urban public schools. The
Coalition is using its funds to reform requirements for teachers,
provide professional development, and recruit for urban schools.; Years
funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.
Grant awarded to: Teaching Matters, Quality Counts; (North Carolina
Central University); Amount funded: $3,781,980; Grant activities
include: The Teaching Matters, Quality Counts grant at North Carolina
Central University is funding scholarships to talented high school and
community college graduates who promise to teach in partner schools.
The grant is also funding a mentoring program for new teachers.; Years
funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.
Grant awarded to: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom
Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT); (University of
Tennessee-Chattanooga); Amount funded: $3,270,959; Grant activities
include: Urban IMPACT is a partnership consisting of two universities
and two school districts. The goal of Urban IMPACT is to increase the
quantity and quality of urban teachers by providing professional
development activities and redesigning the coursework at the teacher
training programs to aid in the recruitment for urban schools. Urban
IMPACT also provides new teachers with mentors and peer group meetings
to help ensure they are receiving adequate support in their first three
years of teaching.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.
Grant awarded to: Project Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology
(CoMeT); (Our Lady of the Lake University); Amount funded: $5,604,478;
Grant activities include: Project CoMeT is a partnership consisting of
a 4-year university--Our Lady of the Lake University--two community
colleges, several school districts, and one PK-12 school. The
partnership is focusing on reforming the curriculum for teacher
candidates at the University to recruit mid-career teacher candidates,
providing competitive grants to schools and school districts so that
they may have more funds for instructional materials, and mentoring new
teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.
Grant awarded to: Institute for School-University Partnerships; (Texas
A&M University); Amount funded: $11,623,979; Grant activities include:
The grant at Texas A&M University provides funding for a partnership
consisting of all nine A&M universities in Texas and 87 high-need
schools that aim to increase the number of teachers prepared in the
Texas A&M system. The grant provides funding for college scholarships
to high school graduates committed to teaching as well as professional
development and mentoring to new teachers. Some grant funds are also
being used to reform the requirements for teachers graduating from the
A&M system.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.
Grant awarded to: Partnership for Quality Education; (University of
Houston); Amount funded: $3,945,239; Grant activities include: The
Partnership for Quality Education is a partnership of four
universities, six school districts, a community college, and a
nonprofit agency. The goal of the grant is to prepare teachers for
urban schools by redesigning the teacher training programs and
providing professional development.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 2000-2004.
Grant awarded to: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Amount funded:
$8,456,364; Grant activities include: The University of Wisconsin -
Milwaukee grant is focusing its efforts on creating new curriculum and
recruiting individuals to teach in urban schools. This program is also
funding a teacher leadership program for veteran teachers to assist and
mentor new teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2004.
Grant awarded to: Recruitment grants; Grant awarded to: State Grants:
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut State
Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board of
Higher Education: Maryland State Department of Education: Massachusetts
Department of Education: North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for
Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction:
Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia
Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education
Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘ Partnership: Renaissance
Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT:
Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality
Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for
the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and
Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships:
Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:
[Empty]; Grant activities include: [Empty]; Years funded: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: [Empty].
Grant awarded to: Los Angeles Unified School District; Grant awarded
to: State Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing:
Connecticut State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents:
Illinois Board of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of
Education: Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State
Board for Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction: Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership
Grant: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois
Teacher Education Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘
Partnership: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality:
Project SITE SUPPORT: Project Learning in Communities (LINC):
Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement:
Teaching Matters, Quality Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare
Able Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project
Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-
University Partnerships: Partnership for Quality Education: University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $956,261; Grant activities include: The Los
Angeles Unified School District is using grant funds to target high
school students interested in a teaching career by providing paid
internships for high school students to assist current teachers in the
classroom. The grant also funds the development of public service
announcements to encourage people to become teachers.; Years funded:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Oakland Unified School District; Grant awarded to:
State Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing:
Connecticut State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents:
Illinois Board of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of
Education: Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State
Board for Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction: Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership
Grant: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois
Teacher Education Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘
Partnership: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality:
Project SITE SUPPORT: Project Learning in Communities (LINC):
Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement:
Teaching Matters, Quality Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare
Able Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project
Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-
University Partnerships: Partnership for Quality Education: University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $1,026,168; Grant activities include: The
Oakland Unified School District targets current teacher assistants
providing tuition assistance to enable them to become certified
teachers. The grant is also reforming the curriculum at a local
university and is providing tutoring and preparation courses for state
certification examinations to teacher candidates.; Years funded: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-
2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: San Diego State University Foundation; Grant awarded
to: State Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing:
Connecticut State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents:
Illinois Board of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of
Education: Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State
Board for Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction: Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership
Grant: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois
Teacher Education Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘
Partnership: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality:
Project SITE SUPPORT: Project Learning in Communities (LINC):
Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement:
Teaching Matters, Quality Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare
Able Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project
Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-
University Partnerships: Partnership for Quality Education: University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $1,412,828; Grant activities include: The goal
of the grant program at the San Diego State University Foundation is to
recruit teachers for high-poverty schools. Grant activities include
promoting early awareness of teaching as a career at the middle school
and high school levels and providing scholarships and support to
students at three community colleges and San Diego State University.;
Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: University of California--Los Angeles; (University of
California Regents Office); Grant awarded to: State Grants: California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut State Department of
Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board of Higher
Education: Maryland State Department of Education: Massachusetts
Department of Education: North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for
Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction:
Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia
Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education
Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘ Partnership: Renaissance
Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT:
Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality
Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for
the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and
Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships:
Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:
$1,213,295; Grant activities include: The majority of grant funds at
the University of California-Los Angeles are being used for
scholarships to first and second year students in their master-level
teacher training program, as well as teacher candidates majoring in
mathematics. The grant is also funding a program that encourages middle
and high school students to become teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Connecticut State Dept of Education; Grant awarded
to: State Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing:
Connecticut State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents:
Illinois Board of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of
Education: Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State
Board for Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction: Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership
Grant: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois
Teacher Education Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘
Partnership: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality:
Project SITE SUPPORT: Project Learning in Communities (LINC):
Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement:
Teaching Matters, Quality Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare
Able Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project
Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-
University Partnerships: Partnership for Quality Education: University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $938,428; Grant activities include: The focus
of the Connecticut State Department of Education recruitment grant is
the coordination of various statewide efforts to address the shortage
of minority teachers in the state. Specifically, this grant is
supporting efforts to recruit minority students from Connecticut middle
and high schools to become teachers in subject areas identified as
shortage areas in the state. Additionally, grant funds are being used
for scholarships and workshops.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Teacher Recruitment Initiative in Tennessee (TRI-
IT!); (University of Tennessee-Chattanooga); Grant awarded to: State
Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut
State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board
of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of Education:
Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for
Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction:
Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia
Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education
Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘ Partnership: Renaissance
Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT:
Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality
Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for
the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and
Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships:
Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:
$1,193,297; Grant activities include: The TRI-IT! grant program is a
partnership between two universities and two school districts. The
program activities vary on the two university campuses, but include a
recruitment strategy for increasing the number of teachers in
mathematics, science, foreign languages, and special education.
Scholarships are given to teacher candidates who are enrolled in the
teacher training programs and are interested in teaching these
subjects. The grant also funds professional development for teachers.;
Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Teacher Recruitment and Induction Project (TRIP);
(Southwest Texas State University); Grant awarded to: State Grants:
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut State
Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board of
Higher Education: Maryland State Department of Education: Massachusetts
Department of Education: North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for
Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction:
Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia
Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education
Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘ Partnership: Renaissance
Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT:
Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality
Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for
the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and
Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships:
Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:
$1,051,241; Grant activities include: TRIP is an accelerated teacher
training program for mid-career professionals. The majority of grant
funds pay for tuition assistance for the program, and the salaries for
four full-time master teachers--who are on loan from the local school
district--to serve as mentors. These mentors supervise the student-
teaching component of the program, as well as support new teachers.;
Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Grant awarded to: Milwaukee Public Schools; Grant awarded to: State
Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut
State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board
of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of Education:
Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for
Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction:
Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia
Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education
Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners‘ Partnership: Renaissance
Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT:
Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality
Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for
the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and
Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships:
Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:
$844,357; Grant activities include: The focus of the Milwaukee Public
Schools grant is to reduce teacher shortages by recruiting mid-career
professionals who already have a bachelor‘s degree and are committed to
working in an urban setting. In addition, the grant funds recruitment
efforts by providing introductory education courses on high school
campuses. University faculty teach these courses, and the high school
students earn college credit if they pass the course.; Years funded:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001:
1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.
Note: Shading is used to show how the grants differ.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of grant activities from site visits and
documents from the U.S. Department of Education.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Accountability Provision Description:
Title II, Section 207 of the Higher Education Act requires the annual
preparation and submission of three reports on teacher preparation and
qualifications: a report from institutions to states, a report from
states to the Secretary of Education, and a report from the Secretary
of Education to Congress and the public. The legislation also requires
that the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics
(Department of Education), in consultation with the states and
institutions of higher education, develop definitions for key terms,
and uniform reporting methods (including the definitions for the
consistent reporting of pass rates), related to the performance of
teacher preparation programs.
The reports mandated in the legislation are required of the following:
1. Institutions of higher education. Institutions that conduct teacher
preparation programs enrolling students who receive federal assistance
under the Title IV of HEA must submit timely and accurate reports or
risk imposition of a fine up to $25,000.
2. States. States receiving HEA funds must submit the reports as a
condition of receiving HEA funding.
3. The Secretary of Education. The Secretary of Education must compile
the information into a national report.
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
[A] Education guidance states that in order for data on an assessment
to be reported, there must be at least 10 program completers taking
that assessment in an academic year.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of the Higher Education Act.
[End of figure]
[End of table]
The following are additional state functions required by the
legislation:
* A state shall have in place a procedure to identify, and assist,
through the provision of technical assistance, low-performing programs
of teacher preparation within institutions of higher education. Such
state shall provide the Secretary an annual list of such low-performing
institutions that includes an identification of those institutions at
risk of being placed on such list. Such levels of performance shall be
determined solely by the state and may include criteria based upon
information collected pursuant to this title.
* Any institution of higher education that offers a program of teacher
preparation in which the state has withdrawn the state‘s approval or
terminated the state‘s financial support due to the low performance of
the institution‘s teacher preparation program based upon the state
assessment described shall be ineligible for any funding for
professional development activities awarded by the Department of
Education; and shall not be permitted to accept or enroll any student
that receives aid under Title IV of this act in the institution‘s
teacher preparation program.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION:
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby
Director, Education, Welfare,
and Income Security Issues
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft
report, ’Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, But Reporting
on These Activities Could Be Enhanced.“ Your report identifies a number
of important mutual concerns regarding the teacher quality improvement
programs authorized by Title 11 of the Higher Education Act (HEA) that
should be considered by Congress during the next reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act.
The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 established an ambitious agenda
for improving teacher quality. The Act authorized, and Congress
subsequently provided, substantial sums for competitive grants to
states and partnerships (between institutions of higher education and
local school districts) to improve the quality of teacher preparation
programs. It also required all institutions of higher education
participating in the federal student financial assistance programs and
states to provide information to the public and to the Department of
Education on the quality of teacher preparation programs and teachers.
One major shortcoming of your report is that it does not acknowledge
the change of Administration in 2001 and the increased emphasis on
improving program management that has occurred under Secretary Paige.
We believe that the report should clearly identify the policies and
procedures followed in implementing the program by the previous
Administration. We also believe that the report should identify the
changes that are being implemented by the current Administration to
address deficiencies.
The report found that the Department did not establish an effective
system for communicating with Title II grantees. In particular, the
report suggests that the Department has not had an effective system for
communicating reporting deadlines and sharing information about
successful --and unsuccessful --practices. Over the past year, we have
improved communications with grantees and potential grant applicants,
and increased our overall communication efforts. Direct contacts have
been made with a number of states and more information is being put on
the Department‘s web site.
1990 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 Our mission is to ensure
equal access to education and to promote educational excellence
throughout the Nation.
You also found that the Department has not had a systematic approach to
evaluate its Title II grant activities. We agree about the need for a
systematic approach to evaluate Title II activities and that this need
was neglected in the initial implementation of the program. Over the
past year, we have been taking steps to strengthen evaluation of Title
II and the other discretionary grant programs administered by the
Office of Postsecondary Education. The Department expects that these
efforts will strengthen weaker projects and identify especially
effective ones.
Your report also says that the information collected by the Department
under Title II does not permit us to accurately report on the quality
of teacher preparation programs and the qualifications of current
teachers in each state. Specifically, you identified as a significant
problem that the terms used in data collection were too broadly
defined. This allows institutions of higher education and states to
interpret them as they wish. As a result, the information that
institutions and states report is not uniform, making it difficult to
assess accountability. In addition, your report states that the time
spent verifying information from states and institutions was limited,
resulting in the inclusion of inaccurate data in the Secretary‘s Title
II report to the Congress. Your recommendation is that the Department
provide clear definitions of terms for collecting data and allow
sufficient time to verify the data collected.
As required by Title II, the Department consulted with states, the
higher education community, and other interested parties during the
previous Administration to define these terms. The proposed definitions
and reporting methods were reviewed by the public before the Office of
Management and Budget approved the collection of the Title II data.
After collecting data through two reporting cycles based on these
definitions, the Department recognizes that the quality of the data
collected must be improved. In addition to the three key terms
identified in your report as needing better definitions-“graduate“ of a
teacher preparation program, ’waiver“ to standard initial teacher
certification requirements, and ’alternative route“ to certification-
the Department believes that other parts of the data collection system
should also be strengthened. The need for this change was recognized
last April in objective 5.2 of the Department‘s strategic plan for
2002-2007, which set a goal to ’Refine the Title II accountability
system.“:
The Department is currently improving the Title II accountability
system in two ways. First, we are aligning the HEA Title II data
collection system with the requirements in Title II of the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This requires making the definition of waiver
in the HEA Title II system complement the definition of highly
qualified teacher in the Title II of NCLB. This alignment will reduce
overall data burden on states in reporting data on teachers and their
qualifications. Second, the Department is developing legislative
proposals on the Title II accountability provisions for Congress to
consider during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
The Department believes that data accuracy is key to the successful
implementation of the Title II accountability provisions. Thus, we
regret that erroneous data on Maine‘s teacher certification
requirements were contained in the first annual Title 11 report on:
teacher quality, and we took responsibility for the error. However, it
is important to note that the time to review those data was not a
factor in causing this problem. The problem occurred because the actual
source of the information was a document from an external agency that
the Department relied upon in calculating the statistics required by
the law. The Department also provided statgfficials with an opportunity
to examine their Title 11 data before they were released. States are
required to certify the accuracy of the Title Il information they
submit to the Department, and we believe your report should note the
centrality of the state role in ensuring the accuracy of the
accountability data.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your draft report.
We are also attaching a list a technical corrections for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Signed by Sally Stroup:
Sally Stroup:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contacts:
Kelsey Bright, Assistant Director, (202) 512-9037
Sonya Harmeyer, Analyst-in-Charge, (202) 512-7128:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report: Tamara Harris, Anjali
Tekchandani, Corinna Nicolaou, Richard Burkard, Jonathan Barker, Paul
Chapman, Jeff Edmondson, Stuart Kaufman, and Bonita Vines.
FOOTNOTES
[1] All 50 states, Washington D.C. and eight territories--the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States
Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,
and the Republic of Palau--are considered states for the purposes of
HEA.
[2] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Teacher Training Programs:
Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Information
Collected To Assess Accountability Has Limitations GAO-03-197T
(Washington, D.C.: October 9, 2002).
[3] In addition to the site visits, we conducted a brief interview with
the director of another grant, the Renaissance Partnership for
Improving Teacher Quality, which consists of
30 institutions of higher education located in 10 different states.
[4] School district eligibility is limited to those with (1) a high
percentage of students whose families fall below the poverty line and
(2) a high percentage of secondary school teachers not teaching in the
content area in which the teachers were trained to teach, or a high
teacher turnover rate.
[5] U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education,
Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary‘s Annual
Report on Teacher Quality, June 2002.
[6] Pedagogy is defined as the study of teaching methods. Courses on
pedagogy include training on how to best instruct students but may also
include course work on classroom management skills--such as how to
maintain order in the classroom.
[7] Most states require teachers to take multiple state certification
examinations in order to become certified to teach in certain subject
areas.
[8] Section 9101(23) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110.
[9] Education funded a total of 45 state grants, 33 partnership grants,
and 45 recruitment grants.
[10] Alabama State University was awarded a recruitment grant in 1999
but refused funding after the first year, leaving a total of 122
grants.
[11] Some entities could become eligible for another partnership or
recruitment grant by changing the makeup of the partnering group. For
example, a college that is part of a current partnership grant could
partner with other entities to form a new partnership and become
eligible for another partnership or recruitment grant.
[12] Wisconsin has 10 standards, such as demonstration of technological
knowledge, that teachers must meet to be certified.
[13] The acronym SITE SUPPORT stands for ’School Immersion Teacher
Education and School University Partnership to Prepare Outstanding and
Responsive Teachers.“
[14] The Los Angeles Unified School District operates on a year-round
basis, with staggered vacation schedules for students. Internships
occur during scheduled student vacations, allowing some students to
participate as interns during their vacation in other schools that are
in session.
[15] Institutions are required to report to their states on the
following: (1) pass rates,
(2) program information--number of students in the program, average
number of hours of supervised student teaching required for those in
the program, and the faculty-student ratio in supervised practice
teaching; and (3) a statement of whether the institution‘s program is
approved by the state.
[16] The Education Trust, Interpret With Caution: The First State Title
II Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation, Washington, D.C.:
June 2002.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting 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 daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports 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. General Accounting 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.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
