Special Education
Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher Requirements Gao ID: GAO-04-659 July 15, 2004During the 2001-2002 school year, more than 400,000 special education teachers provided instructional services to approximately 6 million students with disabilities in U.S. schools. Two federal laws contain teacher qualification requirements that apply to special education teachers: the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Given the committee's interest in issues related to highly qualified special education teachers, we are providing information about (1) the state certification requirements, including the use of alternative certification programs, for special education teachers, and how they relate to NCLBA requirements; (2) the factors that facilitate or impede state efforts to ensure that special education teachers meet NCLBA requirements; and (3) how different offices in the Department of Education (Education) assist states in addressing NCLBA teacher requirements.
In the 2002-2003 school year, all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico required that special education teachers have a bachelor's degree and be certified to teach--two of NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements--and half required special education teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency in core academic subjects, which is the third requirement. Specifically, 24 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico required their teachers to demonstrate some level of subject matter competency by having a degree or passing state tests in the core academic subjects that they wished to teach. Teachers of core academic subjects in the remaining states that did not have such requirements might not be positioned to meet the NCLBA requirements. To meet NCLBA teacher requirements, teachers would need to demonstrate competency in core academic subjects by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. State education officials reported that the availability of funds to support professional development facilitated implementation of the NCLBA teacher requirements, while other factors, such as uncertainty about how to apply the subject matter competency requirement to special education teachers, impeded implementation. State education officials and national education organizations' representatives we interviewed cited the need for more assistance from Education in explaining NCLBA's teacher requirements and identifying implementation strategies. Education has provided a range of assistance, such as site visits, Web-based guidance, and financial assistance, to help states implement the highly qualified teacher requirements. However, department coordination related to the implementation of NCLBA's teacher requirements for special education teachers has been limited.
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-04-659, Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher Requirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-659
entitled 'Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better
Coordination Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the
NCLBA Teacher Requirements' which was released on July 15, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2004:
Special Education:
Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed among Education
Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher Requirements:
GAO-04-659:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-659, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States
Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
During the 2001-2002 school year, more than 400,000 special education
teachers provided instructional services to approximately 6 million
students with disabilities in U.S. schools. Two federal laws contain
teacher qualification requirements that apply to special education
teachers: the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Given the committee‘s interest in issues related to highly qualified
special education teachers, we are providing information about (1) the
state certification requirements, including the use of alternative
certification programs, for special education teachers, and how they
relate to NCLBA requirements; (2) the factors that facilitate or
impede state efforts to ensure that special education teachers meet
NCLBA requirements; and (3) how different offices in the Department of
Education (Education) assist states in addressing NCLBA teacher
requirements.
What GAO Found:
In the 2002-2003 school year, all states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico required that special education teachers have a
bachelor‘s degree and be certified to teach”two of NCLBA‘s teacher
qualification requirements”and half required special education teachers
to demonstrate subject matter competency in core academic subjects,
which is the third requirement. Specifically, 24 states, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico required their teachers to demonstrate
some level of subject matter competency by having a degree or passing
state tests in the core academic subjects that they wished to teach.
Teachers of core academic subjects in the remaining states that did not
have such requirements might not be positioned to meet the NCLBA
requirements. To meet NCLBA teacher requirements, teachers would need
to demonstrate competency in core academic subjects by the end of the
2005-2006 school year.
Status of Special Education Teacher Subject Matter Competency
Requirements for School Year 2002-2003, by State:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
State education officials reported that the availability of funds to
support professional development facilitated implementation of the
NCLBA teacher requirements, while other factors, such as uncertainty
about how to apply the subject matter competency requirement to special
education teachers,short impeded implementation. State education
officials and national education organizations‘ representatives we
interviewed cited the need felt that they needed for more assistance
from Education in explaining NCLBA‘s teacher requirements and
identifying implementation strategies.
Education has provided a range of assistance, such as site visits,
Web-based guidance, and financial assistance, to help states implement
the highly qualified teacher requirements. However, department
coordination related to the implementation of NCLBA‘s teacher
requirements for special education teachers has been limited.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education provide additional
assistance to states in explaining NCLBA teacher requirements and
identifying implementation strategies for special education teachers,
and formalize its efforts to improve the department‘s internal
coordination related to the implementation of these teacher quality
requirements.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-659.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie S. Shaul, (202)
512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
All States Implemented at Least Two of Three NCLBA Teacher Requirements
for Special Education Teachers:
State Officials Cited Several Factors That Affected the Implementation
of NCLBA Subject Matter Competency Requirements for Special Education
Teachers:
Coordination among Education's Offices Responsible for Educating
Students with Disabilities Was Limited:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Thirty-One States with Alternative Routes to Certification
in Special Education during the 2002-2003 School Year:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Application of the NCLBA Teacher Quality Requirements to
Special Educators' Instructional Roles:
Figure:
Figure 1: Status of Special Education Teacher Subject Matter Competency
Requirements for School Year 2002-2003, by State:
Abbreviations:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act:
HOUSSE: high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
IEP: individualized education program:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education:
OSEP: Office of Special Education Programs:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 15, 2004:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Kennedy:
During the 2001-2002 school year, more than 400,000 special education
teachers provided instructional services to approximately 6 million
students with disabilities in U.S. schools. Two federal laws contain
teacher qualification requirements that apply to special education
teachers: the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was last
amended in 1997. Within the Department of Education (Education), the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) has primary
responsibility for implementing NCLBA requirements, and the Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) has primary responsibility for
implementing IDEA requirements. State officials have raised issues
regarding the compatibility of the laws' teacher qualification
requirements and how to apply NCLBA requirements to special education
teachers.
NCLBA requires that all teachers of "core academic subjects," such as
English, meet teacher qualification requirements, and most of these
teachers must do so by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. To meet
requirements, teachers (1) must have at least a bachelor's degree, (2)
be certified to teach by their states, and (3) must demonstrate subject
matter competence in each core academic subject that they teach. Under
the NCLBA, all teachers, including special education teachers, who
provide instruction in core academic subjects are generally required to
meet NCLBA requirements. However, special education teachers who
provide other types of instruction do not need to meet NCLBA
requirements. IDEA generally requires teachers to be appropriately and
adequately trained in accordance with standards established by each
state but does not specify any other minimum qualifications for special
education teachers. Congress is considering including provisions on
special education teacher qualifications in the pending reauthorization
of IDEA.
Given your interest in issues related to special education teacher
qualifications, we are providing information about (1) the state
certification requirements, including the use of alternative
certification programs, for special education teachers, and how they
relate to NCLBA requirements; (2) the factors that facilitate or impede
state efforts to ensure that special education teachers meet NCLBA
requirements; and (3) how different offices in the U.S. Department of
Education assist states in addressing NCLBA teacher requirements.
To obtain this information, we used multiple data collection methods.
First, we surveyed special education directors in 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico[Footnote 1] to obtain information
on their states or territories for the 2002-2003 school year in the
following areas: special education teacher certification requirements,
the conditions or issues that affected implementation of the NCLBA
teacher quality requirements for special education teachers, and the
assistance that various Education offices provided states in
implementing NCLBA requirements for special education teachers. We
achieved a 100 percent response rate. Second, we interviewed education
officials in 6 states: Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,
South Dakota, and Washington. These states were selected for variance
in the number of special education students served, the percentage of
certified special education teachers, and geographic location. We also
interviewed about 20 federal education officials and representatives
from 8 national education organizations regarding special education
teacher certification, qualifications, meeting NCLBA teacher
requirements, and the assistance various Education offices provided to
states in these areas. Finally, we reviewed the Internet sites of all
states to gather information about certification requirements and
alternative certification programs for special education teachers. We
also analyzed agency documentation, legislation, and other
documentation related to special education teacher qualifications and
requirements. We conducted our work between August 2003 and June 2004
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In the 2002-2003 school year, all states required that special
education teachers have a bachelor's degree and be certified to teach-
-two of the NCLBA teacher qualification requirements--and half required
special education teachers to demonstrate competency in core academic
subjects, the third requirement. Specifically, 26 states required their
teachers to demonstrate some level of subject matter competency by
having a degree or passing tests in the academic subjects that they
wished to teach. The remaining states did not have such requirements;
in these states, state-certified special education teachers who were
assigned to teach core academic subjects might not be positioned to
meet the NCLBA requirements. To meet NCLBA teacher requirements,
teachers would need to demonstrate competency in core academic subjects
by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. In 31 states that offered
alternative routes to teacher certification, certification
requirements for alternative route and traditional teacher preparation
program graduates followed a similar pattern in terms of alignment with
NCLBA teacher requirements.
State education officials reported that while the availability of funds
to support professional development facilitated implementation of the
subject matter competency requirements, other factors, such as
uncertainty about how to apply these requirements to special education
teachers teaching multiple subjects, impeded implementation. Some
states helped teachers meet requirements by providing financial aid for
coursework. Other states have provided services to help teachers meet
requirements--for example, allowing teachers to demonstrate subject
matter competency without taking an exam or pursuing a degree. About
half of the state officials and national education organizations'
representatives we interviewed reported that states needed more
assistance on how to implement NCLBA teacher requirements. In addition,
state officials reported that meeting the subject matter competency
requirements would be challenging because of the time frame for
implementation. Although recent Education guidance may have resolved
some concerns regarding time frames, some state officials we
interviewed have continued to report uncertainty regarding the
application of the subject matter competency requirement to special
education teachers. Education officials noted that NCLBA requirements
apply to all teachers, but they also have said that the assessment
level of the students being taught could be considered in determining
the level of subject matter competency requirements for special
education teachers. This could be confusing when special education
teachers teach high school students functioning at elementary school
levels because requirements differ for different grade levels.
Education has provided a range of assistance, such as site visits, Web-
based guidance, and financial assistance, to help states implement the
highly qualified teacher requirements. However, department
coordination related to the implementation of NCLBA's teacher
requirements for special education teachers has been limited. Within
Education, OESE has taken the lead in site visits and posting Web-based
guidance, with support from offices such as the Office of the Secretary
and Office of General Counsel. OSEP, however, played a limited role in
these efforts. When states reportedly sought OSEP's guidance on
requirements for special education teachers, OSEP officials told us
that they generally referred state officials to OESE or to the NCLBA
Web site. Further, until recently, OSEP was not a member of Education's
teacher quality policy team, which is responsible for responding to
state issues and identifying policy concerns. Special education teacher
issues were among the most frequently discussed topics in team
meetings. Because of OSEP's limited involvement prior to being added to
the team, Education may not have been in a position to be fully
apprised of how special education concerns could affect implementation.
However, Education officials told us that they included OSEP by
contacting it to clarify IDEA substantive issues.
In this report we are recommending that the Secretary of Education
provide additional assistance to states in explaining NCLBA teacher
quality requirements and identifying implementation strategies. We are
also recommending that the Secretary of Education formalize efforts to
improve the department's internal coordination related to the
implementation of these NCLBA teacher quality requirements.
Background:
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,[Footnote 2] which reauthorized
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is designed to
improve the education of all students and the quality of teachers.
NCLBA requires that all teachers of "core academic subjects"--defined
to mean English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science,
foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and
geography--be "highly qualified." To be highly qualified, teachers (1)
must have at least a bachelor's degree, (2) be certified to teach by
their state, and (3) demonstrate subject matter competency in each core
academic subject that they teach. A teacher's options for demonstrating
subject matter competency vary according to whether the teacher is new
and the grade level being taught. New elementary school teachers must
demonstrate subject matter competency by passing a rigorous state exam
in the basic elementary school curriculum; new middle or high school
teachers may establish that they are highly qualified by either taking
a rigorous state exam or successfully completing a degree (or
equivalent credentialing) in each core academic subject taught. In
addition, NCLBA allows current teachers to demonstrate subject matter
competency based on a "high objective uniform state standard of
evaluation."[Footnote 3] For example, under these uniform state
standards, a combination of experience, expertise, and professional
training could be used to meet the NCLBA subject matter competency
requirements.
Education has issued guidance to states on how to apply NCLBA
requirements to all teachers, including special education teachers.
According to Education's January 2004 guidance, special education
teachers who provide instruction in core academic subjects, such as
teachers in self-contained classrooms, are required to comply with the
NCLBA subject matter competency requirements. In contrast, those
special educators who do not provide instruction in core academic
subjects, such as those who provide consultative services to highly
qualified general educators, do not have to comply with the NCLBA
teacher requirements. In addition, Education's March 2004 guidance
provided additional flexibility on the implementation deadline and
competency requirements for some special education teachers.
Specifically, the guidance stated that educators in eligible rural
areas who are highly qualified in at least one core academic subject
they teach would have 3 additional years to demonstrate subject matter
competency in other academic areas. The guidance also states that
teachers who provide instruction in multiple core academic subjects
will be able to demonstrate their subject matter competency through one
process under their states' uniform standards, such as taking a single
test that covers multiple core academic subjects.[Footnote 4]
IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the unique needs of
children with disabilities, including, among others, children with
specific learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, mental
retardation, and serious emotional disturbance. The law mandates that a
free appropriate public education be made available for all eligible
children with disabilities, ensures due process rights, requires an
individualized education program (IEP)[Footnote 5] for each student,
requires the inclusion of students with disabilities in state and
district wide assessment programs, and requires the placement of
students in the least restrictive environment. Under IDEA, states are
required to establish special education teacher requirements that are
based on the highest requirements in the state for personnel serving
children and youth with disabilities.
Congress is considering including new special education teacher
qualifications in the reauthorized IDEA. Under H.R. 1350, a new
definition of "highly qualified," as it refers to teachers, would be
added with the same meaning as in NCLBA. In contrast, S. 1248 would add
an extensive definition of "highly qualified" with respect to the
qualification of educational personnel, while taking into account
differences between special education and general education teachers.
For example, under S. 1248, special education teachers who consult with
secondary school core academic subject teachers for children with
disabilities would need to be fully certified in special education and
demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to teach students with
disabilities, to be highly qualified.[Footnote 6] In addition, S. 1248
proposes to extend the deadline for meeting the highly qualified
teacher requirements by 1 year--to school year 2006-2007.
Two offices within the Department of Education are responsible for
addressing special education teacher qualifications: the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Special Education
Programs. The enactment of NCLBA significantly changed the expectations
for all teachers, including those instructing students with
disabilities. For example, states are now required to report on the
qualifications of their teachers and the progress of their students.
OESE has assumed responsibility for developing policies for improving
the achievement of all students and the qualifications of teachers. In
addition, the office provides technical and financial assistance to
states and localities, in part so they can help teachers meet the new
qualification requirements. For example, in fiscal year 2003, OESE
provided funding to state and local education agencies through its
Improving Teacher Quality state grant program.[Footnote 7]
OSEP is responsible for providing leadership and financial resources to
help states and localities implement IDEA for students with
disabilities and their teachers. These responsibilities include
awarding discretionary grants and contracts for projects designed to
improve service provision to children with disabilities. In 2003, OSEP
provided funding to 30 states through the State Improvement Grants
program.[Footnote 8] OSEP also supports research on special education
through centers such as the Center on Personnel Studies in Special
Education.
All States Implemented at Least Two of Three NCLBA Teacher Requirements
for Special Education Teachers:
In the 2002-2003 school year, all states required that special
education teachers have a bachelor's degree and be certified to teach-
-two of the three NCLBA teacher qualification requirements--and half
required special education teachers to demonstrate competency in core
academic subjects, which is the third requirement. In the 26 states
that did not require teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency,
state-certified special education teachers who were assigned to
instruct core academic subjects might not be positioned to meet the
NCLBA requirements. In 31 states that offered alternative routes to
teacher certification, certification requirements for alternative
route and traditional teacher preparation program graduates followed a
similar pattern, with half meeting two of three NCLBA teacher
requirements.
Half of States Have Similar Teacher Requirements to NCLBA, but 26
States Did Not Require Special Education Teachers to Demonstrate
Competency in Core Academic Subjects:
Every state required special education teachers to hold at least a
bachelor's degree and to be certified by their states before teaching,
according to our survey results and reviews of Education documents and
state Web sites.[Footnote 9] States varied in whether they offered one
or more types of teaching certificates for special educators.
Specifically, 30 states established a single certification for special
education teachers that covered kindergarten through 12th grade,
according to survey respondents. The remaining 22 states offered two or
more certifications. For example, some states offered different
certifications for teachers of elementary, middle school, and high
school students. In addition, some states certified special education
teachers to serve students with specific disability categories such as
hearing impaired and emotionally disturbed, and/or with broader
disability categories, such as mild, moderate, and severe special
needs. Finally, several states certified their special education
teachers for specific instructional roles such as general special
education teacher, resource room teacher, or collaborative teacher.
During the 2002-2003 school year, 24 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico required special education teachers to demonstrate some
level of competency in the core academic subjects that they wished to
teach at the time of their initial certification by having a degree or
passing tests in the academic subjects that they wished to teach.
Teachers in these states are better positioned to meet NCLBA's teacher
requirements. However, the level of competency required varied by state
and in some cases may not meet NCLBA competency level requirements. The
rest of the states did not have any such requirements. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Status of Special Education Teacher Subject Matter Competency
Requirements for School Year 2002-2003, by State:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In states that did not have these requirements, the certified special
education teachers who were assigned to instruct core academic subjects
might not be positioned to meet the NCLBA requirements. To meet NCLBA
teacher requirements, these teachers would need to demonstrate subject
matter competency by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
The extent to which special education teachers were required to meet
NCLBA subject matter competency requirements depended upon their
instructional roles, which could sometimes be difficult for prospective
teachers to determine. Special education teachers often attained their
certification prior to being hired by local school districts for
specific grade levels, subjects, or instructional roles. Therefore,
these individuals might not be positioned to meet NCLBA teacher
requirements for their future instructional roles. Furthermore, any
special education teacher who was assigned to teach a different subject
from one year to the next might meet subject matter competency
requirements one year but not the next. According to Education
officials, these challenges are not specific to special education
teachers and will require school districts to be more mindful of
teacher qualifications, including subject matter mastery, when
assigning teachers to various teaching roles.
Special Education Teachers from Programs Offering Alternative Routes to
Certification Were Generally Required to Meet the Same Certification
Requirements as Other Special Education Teachers:
According to survey respondents, 31 states provided alternative routes
to certification for prospective special education teachers. States
have developed such routes to meet specific teacher shortages as well
as to allow professionals in related fields to become teachers. The
alternative routes to certification programs that we reviewed were
generally administered by the state education agencies, often through
institutions of higher education. However, this was not always the
case: In Maryland, for example, one county contracted with Sylvan
Learning Center[Footnote 10] and the New Teacher Project[Footnote 11]
to provide its alternative route to certification program.
Most of the states that provided alternative routes to certification
required that the graduates from such alternative route to
certification programs fulfill the same certification requirements as
graduates from traditional special education teacher preparation
programs, such as having a bachelor's degree and passing teacher
licensing examinations. The primary difference between alternative
route programs and traditional teacher preparation programs was the
extent to which teaching candidates received practical teaching
experience prior to attaining full state certification.
In general, prospective teachers in alternative route to certification
programs were required to receive more practical teaching experience
before being certified than were teachers in traditional programs. For
example, candidates in an alternative route to certification program in
Illinois were required to complete a 1-year mentored teaching
internship, while most traditional certification programs for special
education teachers required teaching candidates to complete a 9-to 18-
week supervised student teaching assignment. This additional teaching
experience has been required because individuals in some alternative
programs have not received courses in pedagogy and instructional
techniques. (See app. I for state special education alternative route
to certification program contact information.)
State Officials Cited Several Factors That Affected the Implementation
of NCLBA Subject Matter Competency Requirements for Special Education
Teachers:
State officials indicated that implementing the core academic subject
competency requirements of NCLBA would be difficult and cited factors
that have facilitated or impeded application of this requirement to
special education teachers. State officials identified several key
facilitators, including having funds available to dedicate to special
educators' professional development and having preexisting or ongoing
efforts to develop subject matter competency standards for special
educators. State officials and national education organizations'
representatives also cited several factors that impeded meeting the
subject competency requirements, including uncertainty about how to
apply the law to special education teachers in some circumstances, and
the need for additional assistance from Education in identifying
implementation strategies.
Availability of Professional Development Funds Was among the Factors
Cited as Facilitating the Implementation of NCLBA Requirements:
Survey respondents, as well as state officials and national education
organizations' representatives we interviewed, reported that the
availability of professional development funding and the flexibility to
use funds were essential in helping teachers meet the NCLBA subject
matter competency requirement. For example, officials in 19 states
reported helping special education teachers by allocating some of the
states' professional development money to financial aid for those
seeking to enhance their knowledge in a core academic subject, such as
by pursuing a degree. In addition, states can use their professional
development funds to create alternative routes to certification. This
could result in developing a cadre of special educators who would
already have expertise in a core academic subject area.
Survey respondents described several state assistance initiatives that
were designed to help special education teachers meet the subject
matter competency requirements. For example, 17 survey respondents
reported holding workshops for special education teachers on specific
academic subjects, and a few states held review sessions to prepare
teachers for states' academic content exams. In addition, respondents
from 7 states reported providing sample test questions to help teachers
prepare for subject matter competency tests. Nineteen survey
respondents reported that their states had established partnerships
with institutions of higher education to develop and implement
strategies to assist special education teachers. For example, Arkansas
collaborated with state colleges and universities to develop dual-
certification programs for special educators.
Officials we interviewed from 2 of 6 states said that they expected
their uniform state standards of evaluation would make it easier for
their experienced teachers to meet NCLBA subject matter requirements.
Specifically, they asserted that these competency standards would allow
states and territories to design alternative methods for evaluating
teachers' knowledge of the subject matter they teach, other than having
a degree or passing subject matter tests in a core academic subject.
According to officials in 2 of the 6 states we interviewed, their
alternative methods of evaluating teachers' subject matter competency
would take into account both a teacher's years of experience and
factors such as participation in professional development courses. A
few state officials and national education organizations'
representatives we spoke to commented that the flexibility to design
alternative methods for evaluating teachers' subject matter knowledge
provided more options for making subject matter competency assessments
of experienced special education teachers.
Uncertainty about How to Apply the Subject Matter Competency
Requirement to Special Education Teachers in Different Instructional
Roles Was One of Several Barriers Cited to Meeting the NCLBA
Requirements:
State officials we interviewed and surveyed reported being concerned
about how difficult meeting the subject matter competency requirements
might be for special educators providing instruction, given that their
roles may require them to teach at multiple grade levels or multiple
subjects. State officials told us that because of special educator
shortages, special education teachers' instructional roles might vary.
For example, some special educators might not have to meet subject
matter competency requirements when they were hired, but subsequently
might have to meet subject matter competency requirements for one or
more core academic subjects, depending upon their instructional roles.
Education has issued guidance that says that teachers instructing core
academic subjects must demonstrate subject matter competency. This
guidance applies to all teachers, including special education teachers.
However, Education officials told us that the assessment level of the
student being taught was a consideration in determining the application
of the NCLBA subject matter competency requirement. The inclusion of
the assessment levels in determining how to apply the NCLBA
requirements may explain some of state officials' uncertainty regarding
the application of the requirement to special education teachers.
About half of the state officials and national education organizations'
representatives we interviewed reported that states needed more
assistance on how to implement NCLBA teacher requirements for their
special education teachers. For example, some state officials from
Oklahoma and South Dakota reported being uncertain how to apply the
requirements to the unique situations in which special education
teachers provide instruction. Officials in these states reported that
they were unclear whether a teacher providing instruction in core
academic subjects to high school age students who are performing at the
elementary level would need to meet elementary or high school level
subject competency requirements (See table 1 for examples of the
application of NCLBA requirements to special educators' instructional
roles).[Footnote 12]
Table 1: Application of the NCLBA Teacher Quality Requirements to
Special Educators' Instructional Roles:
Nature of work: Providing instruction to students in core academic
subjects;
Examples of associated roles: Providing instruction to special
education students, e.g., teachers in self-contained classrooms and
some resource room teachers;
NCLBA requirements special education teachers must meet:
(1) Bachelor's degree;
(2) State certification;
(3) Demonstration of subject matter competency in each core academic
subject taught;
(Elementary school teachers must only demonstrate subject matter
competency in general elementary school curriculum.).
Nature of work: All other special education instruction;
Examples of associated roles: Resource room teachers who reinforce
instruction provided by other highly qualified teachers;
Teachers that consult with a highly qualified general education teacher
to assist students in one grade;
NCLBA requirements special education teachers must meet: None.
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA requirements.
[End of table]
Officials from half the states we surveyed indicated that they did not
believe the law provided enough flexibility for teachers to meet the
subject competency requirements. A few state officials we interviewed,
particularly those with a large percentage of rural districts, such as
those in South Dakota and Arkansas, mentioned this perceived lack of
flexibility as a key concern. In particular, these officials indicated
that because their special education teachers often teach multiple
subjects, they would have to attain multiple degrees or pass several
subject matter tests to meet the subject matter competency requirement.
Recent Education guidance issued after this survey was concluded gives
states more time to help all teachers, including special education
teachers who teach core academic subjects, in small, rural school
districts, meet the requirements. Under this new guidance, teachers in
eligible rural school districts, who are highly qualified in at least
one subject, will have 3 years to become highly qualified in the
additional subjects they teach.
State officials reported concerns about their states' ability to meet
the federal timelines for implementing the NCLBA teacher requirements
for special education teachers. Officials from 32 states reported that
the time frames were not feasible for implementing the requirements.
This included 15 states that had established subject matter competency
requirements for their special education certification. However,
depending on the specific state certification requirements, teachers in
these states may still be required to do additional work to meet the
subject matter competency requirements of NCLBA. In addition, some
state officials reported that their states were not positioned to meet
federal deadlines because some institutions of higher education had not
aligned their programs with NCLBA requirements. For example, officials
in 31 states reported that that current special education teacher
preparation programs hindered implementation of NCLBA requirements,
primarily because these programs did not emphasize majors or
concentrations in core academic subjects. Given these conditions, state
officials, in 3 of the 6 states we visited, reported the need for
additional assistance in identifying strategies to meet the timelines
for meeting requirements. Education also noted that the challenge
facing states is developing new mechanisms to make sure that all
teachers of core academic subjects are able to demonstrate appropriate
subject matter mastery.
Some state officials and national education organizations' leaders also
cited concerns that special education teachers currently teaching might
leave the field rather than take exams or return to school to take the
courses needed to demonstrate subject matter competency. Thirty-two
survey respondents expressed concern that the potential flight of
special education teachers would hinder efforts to implement the
requirements.
Finally, state education officials reported uncertainty over how to
reconcile requirements of the two laws that appear to be inconsistent
and thus could impede implementation of NCLBA. These officials reported
that they were unsure as to which act--IDEA or NCLBA--should take
precedence in establishing personnel requirements for special education
teachers. For example, under IDEA, a student's IEP could require that
he be taught mathematics at a functional level 3 years below his
chronological age, and under IDEA a certified special education teacher
would be qualified to provide this instruction. However, under NCLBA, a
teacher might not be qualified to instruct this student without first
demonstrating subject matter competency in mathematics. According to
Education officials, the requirements would depend in part on the
assessment level of the students being taught. At the same time,
Education officials noted that NCLBA teacher requirements apply to all
teachers, including special education teachers. As a result of this
uncertainty, some of the state special education officials we
interviewed and surveyed said that they had decided to wait for further
guidance or assistance before beginning to implement any NCLBA
requirements for special education teachers. Education officials
reported that they were aware that some states had expressed
uncertainty about how to implement NCLBA's teacher requirements.
Moreover, Education officials noted that states that wait for further
guidance could hinder their special education teachers' ability to meet
the subject matter competency requirements by the end of the 2005-2006
school year.
Coordination among Education's Offices Responsible for Educating
Students with Disabilities Was Limited:
Education has provided a range of assistance, such as site visits, Web-
based guidance, and financial assistance, to help states implement the
highly qualified teacher requirements. However, department
coordination related to the implementation of NCLBA's teacher
requirements for special education teachers has been limited. OESE has
taken the lead in providing this guidance, with support from offices
such as the Office of General Counsel and the Office of the Secretary.
OSEP played a limited role in these efforts. Further, departmental
coordination among Education's offices was limited with respect to
OSEP's involvement in other key teacher quality initiatives. Because of
this, Education may not have been in a position to be fully apprised of
how special education concerns could affect implementation of the NCLBA
teacher requirements. However, Education officials told us that they
included OSEP by contacting OSEP staff to clarify IDEA substantive
issues. Further, Education officials told us they have recently added
OSEP to the department's teacher quality policy team. However,
Education currently does not have plans to develop written policies and
procedures for coordination among its offices.
Education Provided Assistance to States in Implementing the NCLBA
Teacher Requirements:
According to Education officials, OESE took the lead in providing
assistance to states concerning the NCLBA teacher requirements, with
some support provided by offices including OSEP, the Office of the
Secretary, the Office of the Undersecretary, the Assistant Secretary of
Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Office of General Counsel.
One of OESE's key efforts to provide technical assistance to states was
the Teacher Assistance Corps initiative, which sent teams of experts to
states to provide clarification and guidance on implementing NCLBA
teacher requirements. According to Education, these teams have been
responsible for sharing promising strategies, providing advice on
compliance issues, and assisting state officials in setting and meeting
teacher quality goals. The teams have also gathered feedback from
states on their concerns about implementing the teacher requirements.
Team members have included lead officials from OESE and general
counsel, individuals with expertise on issues of concern to particular
states, higher education representatives, and education officials from
that state. Education officials told us that OSEP staff did not
participate in these visits, but two state officials with expertise in
special education participated in some visits.
OESE also offered states other types of assistance. OESE created a
teacher quality newsletter, and the Office of the Under Secretary
created and then updated the No Child Left Behind Toolkit for Teachers
booklet, to help teachers understand the law in general, the highly
qualified teacher requirements, and to explain which teachers need to
meet the NCLBA requirements. However, while the tool kit provided
detailed information pertaining to general education teachers, it
provided limited information for special education teachers. According
to OESE officials, the office had also been developing a Web site on
promising practices for implementing the NCLBA teacher quality
requirements and had plans to feature special education on the site.
However, at the time of our interviews, OESE did not have a timeline
for when this Web site would be available. Finally, OESE also provided
financial assistance to states through Improving Teacher Quality state
grants; states could use this financial assistance to help special
education teachers meet NCLBA teacher requirements.
Education's Internal Coordination on Special Education Teacher
Qualification Issues Was Limited:
The enactment of NCLBA significantly changed the expectations for all
students and their teachers in the nation's schools and increased the
need for OESE and OSEP to coordinate their efforts. NCLBA covers to a
greater extent than did previous educational legislation the groups
that have historically been the primary responsibility of OSEP--
students with disabilities and their teachers. Moreover, NCLBA
established qualifications for all teachers, including special
education teachers, who provide instruction in core academic subjects
such as English, language arts, mathematics, and science.
As state education officials began implementing NCLBA subject matter
competency requirements, they sought guidance from OSEP, their primary
source of information on special education issues. However, OSEP
officials told us that they had generally referred these officials to
OESE or to the NCLBA Web site. OSEP officials told us that they were
waiting until IDEA is reauthorized to develop their own guidance on
special education teacher quality requirements. However, during this
time NCLBA requirements applied to special educators teaching core
academic subjects, and several state officials told us they needed
clarification of the guidance on these requirements.
Coordination between OSEP and OESE has generally been limited. For
example, OSEP commented on the teacher quality policies and initiatives
that OESE developed, but generally was not involved in the initial
development of these policies. Education officials told us that OSEP
was included in the implementation of the teacher requirements, noting
that they contacted this office to clarify IDEA substantive issues and
that OSEP officials reviewed NCLBA guidance. OSEP did not participate
in OESE's Teacher Assistance Corps visits to states and generally was
not involved in the analysis of the information that was collected from
these visits. OESE officials told us that they did not believe that
states would benefit from OSEP's participation in these visits, because
the focus of the visits was on meeting the NCLBA requirements, not IDEA
requirements. In addition, Education told us that there were no written
policies or procedures to assist OESE and OSEP in coordinating the
development and implementation of its teacher quality policies for
special education teachers. Finally, these officials did not indicate
that Education was planning to develop such policies.
In March 2003, Education formed a teacher quality policy team under the
auspices of the Office of the Under Secretary and included other key
offices in Education such as the Office of the Secretary, the Office of
General Counsel, and OESE. This team, run by OESE, has focused on NCLBA
implementation related to teacher qualifications, and special education
teacher issues have been among the topics most frequently discussed.
OSEP was not a member of this team until April 2004, when Education
officials told us that OSEP had become a part of the team.
Conclusions:
NCLBA is a complex law with new requirements that hold states,
districts, and schools accountable for ensuring that their teachers
meet specific qualifications. Further, the law applies to all teachers,
including special education teachers, resulting in states and districts
having to reassess how they certify and assign special education
teachers, as well as provide professional development geared toward
helping teachers meet requirements.
State officials reported the need for assistance on how to meet NCLBA
requirements, with Education also noting the need for states to have
more information on strategies to meet requirements. Because half of
the states do not have subject matter competency requirements as part
of special education certification, these states in particular are
challenged with developing strategies to help their teachers meet NCLBA
requirements. Without additional assistance on such strategies, special
education teachers may not be positioned to meet requirements by the
end of 2005-2006 school year. In addition, several state education
officials cited the need for additional clarification on the
application of the NCLBA subject matter competency requirement to
special education teachers in special circumstances, for example those
providing instruction to high school age students who are performing at
the elementary level. Without additional assistance from Education to
resolve state concerns related to special education teacher
qualification issues, some states might not be able to determine how to
focus their resources to ensure that their teachers meet the act's
requirements.
NCLBA covers to a greater extent than did previous elementary and
secondary education acts the groups that have historically been the
primary responsibility of OSEP--students with disabilities and their
teachers. OESE has assumed primary responsibility for implementing
NCLBA, including provisions applying to special education teachers.
OESE has generally not relied on OSEP staff or information produced by
OSEP to develop policy or guidance. Consequently, OESE may not have
fully benefited from OSEP's expertise to inform its NCLBA discussions
on policies and guidance related to special education teacher issues
and requirements. Although Education has recently added OSEP to its
NCLBA teacher quality policy team, overall NCLBA coordination efforts
among Education offices have not been formalized in writing to ensure
appropriate and continuing involvement of these offices. As a result,
the department may not fully address states' needs for information and
assistance on the implementation of NCLBA requirements for special
education teachers.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better address states' concerns about their special education
teachers being positioned to meet NCLBA teacher requirements, we
recommend that the Secretary of Education provide additional assistance
to states on strategies to meet the requirements and clarification of
subject matter competency requirements for special education teachers.
To continue to improve policy development and technical assistance that
Education's offices provide to states on NCLBA requirements, we
recommend that Education formalize in writing coordination efforts
between OESE and OSEP. For example, such efforts could include defining
how OSEP's expertise and staff would be involved in developing NCLBA
policies and guidance related to special education teachers and in
providing technical assistance to states.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
In their comments, Education officials noted that they believed their
guidance was clear but recognized that states were still struggling to
identify strategies to meet requirements. Education officials provided
new information in their comments on the draft that indicated improved
coordination among those Education offices that are involved in NCLBA
policy development and guidance. Consequently, we modified the report
on both these topics to reflect Educationsí comments. Education
officials also provided technical comments that we incorporated into
the report where appropriate. Educationís comments are reproduced in
appendix II.
Given the difficulties states are experiencing in implementing the law
and the level of uncertainty reported by state officials, we believe
that additional assistance needs to be provided by Education to help
states implement the requirements. In Educationís comments, the
department noted that states were having difficulty implementing NCLBA
teacher requirements. Education officials highlighted assistance they
provided and their willingness to provide additional technical
assistance, depending on what states need. We believe Education could
help states by identifying strategies to help states meet requirements,
especially those states without subject matter competency requirements
for their special education teachers. In addition, Education noted in
its comments that guidance on how to apply the NCLBA subject matter
competency requirement for special education teachers instructing high
school age students functioning at elementary school levels was not
different from guidance for all teachers. However, Education officials
have also said that the assessment level of a student could be
considered in determining how to apply the NCLBA teacher requirements.
We encourage Education to provide assistance to explain the
requirements, particularly as they relate to unusual circumstances
involving varying student assessment levels. We have modified the
report to reflect Educationís comments.
We continue to believe that improved coordination is needed. However,
we modified the report to reflect Educationís recent addition of OSEP
to its teacher quality policy team. We acknowledge Educationís effort
in this regard and encourage the department to formalize its
coordination policies by putting them in writing. We believe that
formalizing coordination efforts will ensure that the different offices
continue to be involved in developing NCLBA policies and guidance
related to special education teachers.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Education,
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be made available at no charge on GAOís Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Other contacts and major contributors are
listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Thirty-One States with Alternative Routes to Certification
in Special Education during the 2002-2003 School Year:
State: Alabama;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director
Teacher Education and Certification
Alabama Department of Education
Post Office Box 302101
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 242-9560
Fax: (334) 242-0498
Web site: www.alsde.edu
State: Arizona;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Deputy Associate Superintendent for Highly Qualified Professionals
AZ Department of Education
1535 W. Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-6490
Phone: (602) 364-2294
Fax: (602) 542-1411
Web site: www.ade.az.gov/certification
State: California;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
1900 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 327-8663
Fax: (916) 324-8927
Web site: www.ctc.ca.gov
State: Colorado;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director
Colorado Department of Education
201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 201
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-6932
Fax: (303) 866-6968
Web site: www.cde.state.co.us
State: Georgia;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director
Educator Preparation Professional Standards Commission
Two Peachtree, Suite 6000
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 232-2640
Fax: (404) 232-2760
Web site: gapsc.com
State: Hawaii;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Hawaii Teacher Standards Board
650 Iwilei Road, Suite 201
Honolulu, HI 96817
Phone: (808) 586-2617
Fax: (808) 585-2606
Web site: www.htsb.org
State: Kentucky;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director
Division of Professional Learning and Assessment
Education Professional Standards Board
100 Airport Road Third Floor
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: (502) 564-4606
Fax: (502) 564-9484
Web site: www.kyepsb.net
State: Louisiana;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director of Teacher Certification and Higher Education
Louisiana Department of Education
1201 North Third Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone: (225) 342-3562
Fax: (225) 342-7367
Web site: http://www/lde/index.html
State: Maine;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Education Policy Director
Maine Department of Education
23 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Phone: (207) 624-6603
Fax: (207) 624-6604
Web site: www.state.me.us/education
State: Maryland;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director of Quality Teaching
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore St.
Baltimore, MD 21201-2595
Phone: (410) 767-0390
Fax: (410) 333-8963
Web site: marylandpublicschools.org/
State: Massachusetts;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Title II Accountability Team Leader
Department of Education, Educator Preparation
350 Main Street 5th Floor
Malden, MA 02148
Phone: (781) 338-3270
Fax: (781) 338-3396
Web site: www.doe.mass.edu
State: Michigan;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Higher Education Coordinator
Michigan Department of Education (MDE)
John A. Hannah Building,
608 West Allegan Street,
Lansing, MI 48933 Or P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: (517) 373-1925
Fax: (517) 373-0542
Web site: http://www.michigan.gov/mde
State: Mississippi;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director
Office of Educator Licensure
Mississippi Department of Education
P. O. Box 771
Jackson, MS 39205- 0771
Phone: (601) 359-3483
Fax: (601) 359-2778
Web site: www.mde.k12.ms.us/license/
State: Missouri;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Assistant Director
Educator Preparation Department
Elementary and Secondary Education
PO Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 522-2544
Fax: (573) 526-3580
Web site: http://dese.mo.gov/
State: Nevada;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Administrator
Nevada Department of Education
Office of Teacher Education and Licensure
1820 E. Sahara Ave. Suite 205
Las Vegas, NV 89104-3721
Phone: (702) 486-6496
Fax: (702) 486-6474
Web site: www.nde.state.nv.us
State: New Hampshire;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Administrator
Bureau of Credentialing
Division of Program Support
New Hampshire Department of Education
101 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03801
Phone: (603) 271-4196
Fax: (603) 271-8709
Web site: ed.state.nh.us
State: New Mexico;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director of Professional Licensure
New Mexico State Dept. of Education
Education Building,
300 Don Gaspar
Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786
Phone: (505) 827-6581
Fax: (505) 827-4148
Web site: sde.state.nm.us/divisions/ais/licensure/index.html
State: New York;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Executive Coordinator
New York State Education Department
Office of Teaching Initiatives
89 Washington Avenue - Room 5N EB
Albany, NY 12234
Phone: (518) 474-4661
Fax: (518) 473-0271
Web site: http://www.nysed.gov/tcert
State: North Carolina;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director
Division of Human Resource Management
NC Department of Public Instruction
Mail Service Center 6330
Raleigh, NC 27699-6330
Phone: (919) 807-3355
Fax: (919) 807-3362
Web site: www.ncpublicschools.org
State: Ohio;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Office of Educator Preparation
Ohio Department of Education
25 S. Front St. MS502
Columbus, OH 43215-4183
Phone: (614) 752-9447
Fax: (614) 728-3058
Web site: www.ode.state.oh.us
State: Oklahoma;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director of Professional Services
Oklahoma State Department of Education
2500 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599
Phone: (405) 521-2062
Fax: (405) 521-3744
Web site: http://sde.state.ok.us
State: Pennsylvania;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Chief
Division of Teacher Education
Pa. Dept. of Education
333 Market Street Third Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126
Phone: (717) 783-9252
Fax: (717) 783-6736
Web site: www.teaching.state.pa.us
State: South Carolina;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Title II Coordinator
South Carolina Department of Education
3700 Forest Drive
Columbia, SC 29204
Phone: (803) 734-8944
Fax: (803) 734-0872
Web site: http://www.scteachers.org/
State: South Dakota;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director of Teacher Education and Certification
Department of Education
700 Governors Drive
Pierre, SD 57501-2291
Phone: (605) 773-4774
Fax: (605) 773-6139
Web site: www.state.sd.us/deca/account/certif.htm
State: Tennessee;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director
Office of Teacher Licensing
Tennessee State Department of Education
5th Floor, Andrew Johnson Tower
710 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0377
Phone: (615) 532- 4880
Fax: (615) 532-1448
Web site: http://www.tennessee.gov/education/lic_home.htm
State: Texas;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Program Administrator
State Board for Educator Certification
4616 W. Howard Lane Suite 120
Austin, TX 78728
Phone: (512) 238-3200
Fax: (512) 238-3203
Web site: www.sbec.state.tx.us
State: Utah;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Utah State Office of Education
250 East 500 South
P.O. Box 144200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4200
Phone: (801) 538-7739
Fax: (801) 538-7973
Web site: www.usoe.org
State: Vermont;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director for Educator Quality
Vermont Department of Education
120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620
Phone: (802) 828-3850
Fax: (802) 828-5107
Web site: http://www.state.vt.us/educ
State: Virginia;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director of Teacher Education
Virginia Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, VA 23218-2120
Phone: (804) 692-0251
Fax: (804) 786-6759
Web site: www.pen.k12.va.us
State: West Virginia;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Teacher Preparation Coordinator
West Virginia Department of Education
Building 6, Room 252
1900 Kanawha Blvd. East Charleston, WV 25305-0330
Phone: (304) 558-2703
Fax: (304) 558-7843
Web site: http://wvde.state.wv.us/
State: Wyoming;
State alternative route to certification in special education
contact information:
Director
Professional Teaching Standards Board
1920 Thomes Ave. Suite 400
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Phone: (307) 777-6261
Fax: (307) 777-8718
Web site: www.k12.wy.us/ptsb.
Source: GAO analysis of survey responses from the special education
directors in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,
and state 2003 Title II reports.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
WASHINGTON, D.C, 20202:
June 16, 2004:
Ms. Marnie Shaul:
Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
This is in response to GAO's draft report, "Special Education:
Additional Guidance and Better Coordination needed among Education
Offices to help States Meet the NCLB Teacher Requirements (GAO-04-
659)." We have carefully reviewed the document and appreciate the
opportunity to comment.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), emphasizes
teacher quality as one of the primary factors contributing to improved
student achievement. Consistent with this emphasis, and to better equip
States for the critical task of ensuring that all teachers of core
academic subjects are highly qualified, the Department of Education
(ED) dedicated significant resources to developing guidance that
clearly articulates how the highly qualified teacher provisions affect
all teachers and related personnel, including special educators.
NCLB Sets High Standards for All Teachers of Core Academic Subjects:
NCLB requires that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly
qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. It sets high
standards for all teachers, including special education teachers, to
know the subjects that they teach. This is a new, but important,
challenge for many States and is a critical component of ensuring that
all students can meet State standards, including special education
students. The report recommends that ED provide additional guidance and
support to States in their efforts to implement the highly qualified
teacher requirements for special education teachers. ED intends to
continue to provide guidance and technical assistance where it is
needed. However, your own findings on pages 12 and 13 of the draft
report show that one half of the States surveyed indicated that they
didn't believe that the law "provided enough flexibility for teachers
to meet the subject matter mastery requirements," whereas only six
States found that our guidance impeded implementation. The draft report
consequently implies that there is flexibility in the law that does not
exist, and that the key issue is about ED's failure to provide "more"
guidance. Furthermore, the report recommends that ED should issue
guidance on whether special education teachers providing instruction to
high school age students functioning at the elementary level would need
to demonstrate subject matter competency at the high school level. The
overemphasis of this idea in the report will likely be seen as
suggesting, inappropriately we believe, that ED should permit such
deviations from the NCLB requirements. Though this was not included
among the report's conclusions, we strongly believe that the primary
issue raised by GAO's survey data is not that ED has failed to provide
sufficient guidance, but rather that many States are legitimately
struggling to meet NCLB's very clear teacher quality requirements,
which apply to all teachers of core academic subjects. The challenge
facing States is not interpreting whether NCLB requirements superseded
IDEA but rather developing new mechanisms to make sure that all
teachers of core academic subjects, including special education
teachers, are able to demonstrate appropriate subject matter mastery.
The report does not adequately present and discuss your survey findings
concerning the response of a number of States to the NCLB highly
qualified teacher requirements. The clear guidance from the Department
has been that these requirements apply to special education teachers
who provide instruction in core academic subjects, but the report finds
that the response of a number of States has been to simply `wait for
further guidance.' This delaying response by some States has robbed
special education teachers in those States of at least eighteen months
of time to prepare to meet those standards by the 2005-2006 deadline.
State reluctance to tackle the challenges presented by NCLB's mandate
to improve teacher quality should be acknowledged as one of the key
'factors impeding State efforts to ensure that special education
teachers meet NCLB requirements,' yet aside from this brief mention, it
is not further addressed.
The report also mentions that, of 52 States surveyed, officials in 32
States (or in one place 31) reported concerns or problems in meeting
the content knowledge requirements of NCLB. Yet on pages 7-9 of the
draft report, the report notes that 24 States, DC and Puerto Rico
already have subject matter competency requirements. The juxtaposition
of these facts raises serious questions that are never addressed in
this document, such as why States that already have subject matter
competency requirements view NCLB as imposing infeasible timeframes,
creating mismatches with current teacher preparation programs, or
contributing to a potential flight of special education teachers.
Exploring these questions could have yielded helpful information to
States that are legitimately struggling to implement NCLB's teacher
quality requirements. Unfortunately, the report misses the opportunity
to explore such questions, focusing instead on simply cataloguing State
complaints.
The report notes "officials in 31 States reported that current special
education teacher preparation programs hindered implementation of NCLB
requirements, primarily because these programs did not emphasize majors
or concentrations in core academic subjects." We concur with this
finding, but we also believe that it should be more thoroughly
discussed in your report. This is a significant obstacle to meeting the
requirements of the law and ensuring that the students who most need
them have teachers that can teach to State standards. Interestingly,
this finding is also consistent with what we have learned through the
Teacher Assistance Corps, regular communication with State and
district officials, and outreach to State and local officials and
practitioners at conferences and roundtable discussions nationwide.
Departmental Guidance and Technical Assistance:
Because the report recommends additional guidance, we would like to
briefly outline the significant background and guidance that ED has
already provided on NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements.
In December of 2002, approximately 11 months after the enactment of
NCLB, ED published regulations addressing the highly qualified teacher
requirements, including a detailed discussion of how these requirements
apply to special education teachers. Following up on requests for
clarification about how the "highly qualified" requirements apply to
special education teachers, these regulations contain the following
discussion:
The ESEA specifies that all teachers of core academic subjects are to
meet the requirements set forth in the statute. Students with limited
English proficiency or with disabilities are expected to meet the same
standards as all other students, and their teachers should be expected
to have met the same standards for content knowledge. On the other
hand, special educators who do not directly instruct students on any
core academic subject or who provide only consultation to highly
qualified teachers of core academic subjects in adapting curricula,
using behavioral supports and interventions, and selecting appropriate
accommodations do not need to meet the same "highly qualified" subject-
matter competency requirements that apply under the NCLB Act to
teachers of core academic subjects. SEAs and LEAs must ensure that all
special education personnel, including related services providers, meet
the personnel-standards requirements of section 612(a)(15) of the IDEA
and 34 CFR Sec. 300.136. Special education teachers who are providing
instruction in core academic subjects also must meet the "highly
qualified" requirements of the ESEA.
The Secretary recognizes that there is an urgent need for highly
qualified teachers, and that critical shortages exist in some areas,
particularly math and science teachers, and special education teachers.
Nevertheless, the NCLB Act sets high standards for students,
as well as teachers, and States should work to meet them. The statute
provides a certain amount of flexibility in how the standards are met.
Teachers can demonstrate competency by taking a test, and States have
flexibility to tailor those tests to the subjects taught by teachers,
including special education teachers and teachers of LEP students. This
issue will be addressed further in guidance.
Following up on this initial discussion, within several weeks ED
released the first draft of Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State
Grants. Part A non-regulatory guidance, which includes extensive
discussion of how NCLB's highly qualified requirements apply to all
teachers, including special educators. Since then, revised and expanded
versions of the Title II: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants non-
regulatory guidance were released in September 2003, January 2004, and
March 2004, and another update is coming soon (see
http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.doc). The Department
views frequent updates to our guidance as essential to assisting
States in their efforts to implement NCLB. Multiple items contained in
these guidance documents directly or indirectly relate to the impact
of NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements on special education
teachers. It is noteworthy that this guidance also addresses the issue
of teachers who only provide consultative services, specifying that
NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements do not apply to such
teachers.
In response to State concerns over the difficulty of ensuring that all
special educators and other multi-subject teachers are highly
qualified, in March 2004, ED also announced new flexibility that
streamlines NCLB's requirements for veteran teachers of core academic
subjects. A Dear Colleague letter was sent to States describing this
new flexibility
(see http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/04033l.html).
Beyond the published guidance documents already discussed, ED also
provided technical assistance to each State through the September 2003
publication, and updated May 2004 version, of No Child Left Behind: A
Toolkit for Teachers, (The Toolkit is on-line at http://www.ed.gov/
teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf). The Toolkit is designed
to provide teachers with valuable information about NCLB's teacher
quality provisions. More than 100,000 of these booklets were
distributed, and ED plans to distribute an updated Toolkit for Teachers
to more than 300,000 professionals. In addition to guidance for special
educators on the NCLB teacher requirements as well as student testing
requirements and considerations, the toolkit includes a section called
"Teaching Students with Disabilities." This section, along with a list
of resources, was jointly developed with the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to ensure that special
educators received helpful and accurate information.
To ensure that States had accurate information about the highly
qualified teacher provisions, the Department also launched the Teacher
Assistance Corps (TAC) --a team of 45 education experts, researchers,
and practitioners who provide support to States. The TAC was
specifically created to support State efforts in the implementation of
NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements. During visits to every
State, including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, TAC members
listened to the concerns of State and local officials, offered guidance
and assistance, and shared interesting and promising initiatives around
the nation addressing these concerns and challenges. Several TAC
members were selected on the strength of their experience in special
education --either as practitioners or policy makers at the State and
local levels. Prior to the TAC visits, OESE staff discussed with OSERS
how best to work together to address the needs of States. It was
mutually decided OSERS would not send staff to each State, but would
help with the process through other means, including suggesting TAC
team members, and assisting with providing guidance and assistance to
States that requested it during their visits.
TAC site visit agendas were custom tailored to State needs and requests
for further guidance, and every visit included discussion of how NCLB's
highly qualified teacher provisions apply to special education
teachers. Beyond merely explaining the law, TAC members suggested
solutions on the difficult question of how States, districts and
schools can train, recruit and retain highly qualified special
education teachers. TAC is an ongoing initiative and any State may
request a follow-up visit or conference call.
Unfortunately, after TAC's initial round of visits, only a handful of
States have taken advantage of this valuable opportunity for
assistance.
Following up on TAC visits to each State, ED created a list of
promising State initiatives, located on our teacher quality website,
www.teacherquality.us. This information is available for every State to
learn more about what is going on around the country, and is
continuously updated as ED learns more about State initiatives.
In addition to recommending that ED provide further assistance to
States, the report also recommends that ED coordinate more effectively
between offices, primarily OESE and the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP), which is part of OSERS. OESE is primarily responsible
for overseeing and assisting States as they implement NCLB's highly
qualified teacher provisions. In working to develop meaningful guidance
and provide ongoing technical assistance to States, OESE worked with
nearly every office in the Department --including all offices whose
customers are directly impacted by the highly qualified teacher
requirements. OSERS staff provided significant information and
feedback, participating directly in key discussions relating to special
education teachers. ED's guidance is consistent with the letter and
spirit of NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA).
I would also like to clarify that staff from OSERS (including OSEP) are
part of the teacher quality policy team that is currently run out of
OESE. The team serves a staff role in responding to State issues and
identifying policy issues, and reports to the NCLB Coordinating Board
and the current Deputy Secretary, which makes any key policy decisions.
OSERS leadership and staff, other program offices, and ED senior
leadership are part of the NCLB Coordinating Board, which meets on a
weekly basis.
As States work to implement the highly qualified teacher requirements
for special education teachers, ED welcomes requests for technical
assistance. Depending on State need, the Department is willing to
provide additional technical assistance in a variety of ways, including
sending relevant experts in special education to visit States or
discussing these issues via conference. OESE will continue to work with
relevant offices, including OSEP, in our efforts to develop policy
consistent with NCLB and IDEA to implement the highly qualified teacher
requirements.
We appreciate your efforts in preparing this report and providing us
with an opportunity to submit these comments. Please feel free to
contact us if you would like to discuss any of these matters further.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Troy Justesen:
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary:
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services:
Signed by:
Raymond Simon:
Assistant Secretary:
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Harriet C. Ganson, (202) 512-7042, gansonh@gao.gov
Arthur T. Merriam Jr., (617) 788-0541, merriama@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Emily Leventhal, Benjamin Howe,
Ron La Due Lake, Luann Moy, Jean McSween, Bob DeRoy, Bryon Gordon, Behn
Kelly, and Amy Buck made key contributions to the report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Hereinafter, the term states will refer collectively to the 50
states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
[2] Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
[3] Referred to as "HOUSSE" by state education administrators.
[4] For additional information on the U.S. Department of Education's
March 2004 guidance on the opportunities for flexibility in meeting the
No Child Left Behind Act's requirements, go to http://www.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/guid/secletter/040331.html.
[5] The term individualized education program refers to a written
statement that is developed for each student with a disability that
specifies, among other components, the goals and objectives for the
student, describes the services that a student will receive, and
specifies the extent to which the student will participate in the
regular education setting with nondisabled peers and or in the general
curriculum adopted for all students.
[6] For additional information see The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): Selected Changes that Would be Made to the Law by
S. 1248, 108th Congress, Congressional Research Service (May 2004).
[7] Improving Teacher Quality state grants are made specifically to
encourage states to improve the quality of their teaching force through
activities such as recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers
and principals and reforming teacher and principal certification
programs.
[8] The purpose of State Improvement Grant program is to assist state
educational agencies and their partners with reforming and improving,
among other things, their systems for professional development and
technical assistance to improve results for children with disabilities.
[9] Although data are available on the numbers of certified and
uncertified special education teachers, we did not consider the data to
be sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes.
[10] Sylvan Learning Centers is an international organization that
provides personalized instruction to students of all ages and skill
levels.
[11] The New Teacher Project is a national organization that works with
state departments of education, school districts, and institutions of
higher education to recruit, select, and train new teachers.
[12] Students with disabilities generally attend school with other
students of similar ages. As a result, a high school-aged student with
a disability would generally receive instruction with other high
school-aged students in general education or separate classrooms. In
addition, students with disabilities receive their instruction based
upon their individuals needs. This instruction may be presented either
at or below the student's chronological age grade level as required by
the student's IEP.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
