No Child Left Behind Act
Improved Accessibility to Education's Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification Requirements Gao ID: GAO-06-25 November 21, 2005The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 established qualification requirements that teachers of core academic subjects must meet by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Congress has appropriated approximately $3 billion a year through the Title II, Part A (Title II), of NCLBA for teacher improvement programs since the law was passed. With the deadline approaching for all teachers to meet the requirements, GAO was asked to examine (1) the status of state efforts to meet NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements, (2) the use of Title II funds in selected districts, and (3) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) monitors states and assists them with implementation of the requirements. To obtain this information, GAO reviewed teacher qualifications data submitted to Education by 47 states, conducted site visits to 6 states selected for variance in factors such as teacher requirements and geographic location, visited 11 school districts across these states identified as high-need, and interviewed national experts and Education officials.
Data reported to Education by 47 states suggest that the majority of core academic classes were taught by teachers who met NCLBA requirements during the 2003-2004 school year. States have improved in their ability to track and report the percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who met NCLBA qualification requirements, but several limitations on the quality and precision of state-reported data make it difficult to determine the exact percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers meeting the requirements. Five of the 6 states that we visited allowed veteran teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency through a state-developed procedure called High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE). Officials in states and districts that we visited said that teachers of multiple subjects, such as teachers in rural schools with a small teaching staff, would likely face challenges meeting the requirements by the 2005-2006 deadline. The 11 school districts that we visited all used Title II funds to provide professional development, and most used Title II funds to reduce class size. Officials in the majority of these districts indicated that NCLBA had led to improvements in the kinds of professional development they funded with Title II funds. Although officials in over half of the districts indicated that they continued to use Title II funds to reduce class size, an activity that was supported under a federal program that predated NCLBA, some district officials told us that they had shifted funds away from class size reduction to initiatives designed to improve teachers' subject matter knowledge and instructional skills, such as professional development. All districts that we visited reported considering student achievement data and targeting Title II funds to improve instruction in the academic subjects in which students were lagging behind. In the 11 districts, few efforts funded with Title II targeted specific groups of teachers, such as teachers in high-poverty schools. Title II funds constituted a small proportion of total funds that districts could use for teacher improvement initiatives, and all districts that we visited used several other funding sources to support their teacher programs. Education monitored state efforts to meet the teacher qualification requirements and offered multiple types of assistance to help teachers meet the requirements. In monitoring states, Education has found several areas of concern, such as states not ensuring that certain newly hired teachers met NCLBA's requirements. Education's assistance has included professional development for teachers and site visits to provide technical assistance to state officials. Education officials said that their Web site has been an important tool for disseminating resources about the requirements, but officials from most states and districts that we visited told us that they were unaware of some of these resources or had difficulty locating them, despite frequently using the Web site.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-25, No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education's Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification Requirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-25
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to
Education's Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher
Qualification Requirements' which was released on November 21, 2005.
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.
GAO:
November 2005:
No Child Left Behind Act:
Improved Accessibility to Education's Information Could Help States
Further Implement Teacher Qualification Requirements:
GAO-06-25:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-25, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 established qualification
requirements that teachers of core academic subjects must meet by the
end of the 2005-2006 school year. Congress has appropriated
approximately $3 billion a year through the Title II, Part A (Title
II), of NCLBA for teacher improvement programs since the law was
passed. With the deadline approaching for all teachers to meet the
requirements, GAO was asked to examine (1) the status of state efforts
to meet NCLBA‘s teacher qualification requirements, (2) the use of
Title II funds in selected districts, and (3) how the U.S. Department
of Education (Education) monitors states and assists them with
implementation of the requirements. To obtain this information, GAO
reviewed teacher qualifications data submitted to Education by 47
states, conducted site visits to 6 states selected for variance in
factors such as teacher requirements and geographic location, visited
11 school districts across these states identified as high-need, and
interviewed national experts and Education officials.
What GAO Found:
Data reported to Education by 47 states suggest that the majority of
core academic classes were taught by teachers who met NCLBA
requirements during the 2003-2004 school year. States have improved in
their ability to track and report the percentage of core academic
classes taught by teachers who met NCLBA qualification requirements,
but several limitations on the quality and precision of state-reported
data make it difficult to determine the exact percentage of core
academic classes taught by teachers meeting the requirements. Five of
the 6 states that we visited allowed veteran teachers to demonstrate
subject matter competency through a state-developed procedure called
High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE). Officials
in states and districts that we visited said that teachers of multiple
subjects, such as teachers in rural schools with a small teaching
staff, would likely face challenges meeting the requirements by the
2005-2006 deadline.
The 11 school districts that we visited all used Title II funds to
provide professional development, and most used Title II funds to
reduce class size. Officials in the majority of these districts
indicated that NCLBA had led to improvements in the kinds of
professional development they funded with Title II funds. Although
officials in over half of the districts indicated that they continued
to use Title II funds to reduce class size, an activity that was
supported under a federal program that predated NCLBA, some district
officials told us that they had shifted funds away from class size
reduction to initiatives designed to improve teachers‘ subject matter
knowledge and instructional skills, such as professional development.
All districts that we visited reported considering student achievement
data and targeting Title II funds to improve instruction in the
academic subjects in which students were lagging behind. In the 11
districts, few efforts funded with Title II targeted specific groups of
teachers, such as teachers in high-poverty schools. Title II funds
constituted a small proportion of total funds that districts could use
for teacher improvement initiatives, and all districts that we visited
used several other funding sources to support their teacher programs.
Education monitored state efforts to meet the teacher qualification
requirements and offered multiple types of assistance to help teachers
meet the requirements. In monitoring states, Education has found
several areas of concern, such as states not ensuring that certain
newly hired teachers met NCLBA‘s requirements. Education‘s assistance
has included professional development for teachers and site visits to
provide technical assistance to state officials. Education officials
said that their Web site has been an important tool for disseminating
resources about the requirements, but officials from most states and
districts that we visited told us that they were unaware of some of
these resources or had difficulty locating them, despite frequently
using the Web site.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make the
Web-based information on teacher qualification requirements more
accessible to users of its Web site. In comments, Education officials
agreed with our recommendation and reported taking actions to address
it.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-25.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie Shaul at (202) 512-
6778 or shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
States Have Made Progress in Meeting Teacher Qualification
Requirements, but Challenges Remain:
Visited School Districts Most Often Used Title II Funds for
Professional Development:
Education Monitored States and Offered Assistance on Implementing the
Requirements, but Some of Education's Information Was Not Readily
Accessible:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Activities on Which States and Districts Can Spend Title
II, Part A, Funds:
Appendix II: State-Reported Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught
by Teachers Meeting NCLBA's Teacher Qualification Requirements in the
2003-2004 School Year:
Appendix III: Sample HOUSSE Procedures from Two States Visited:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Major Findings from Education's Title II Monitoring:
Table 2: NCLBA's Criteria for HOUSSE Procedures:
Table 3: Title II, Part A, State Activities:
Table 4: Title II, Part A, District Activities:
Figures:
Figure 1: Federal Teacher Qualification Criteria:
Figure 2: Phase-in of Teacher Qualification Requirements:
Figure 3: Overview of HOUSSE Point Systems in Site Visit States:
Figure 4: Information on Teacher Qualifications Available through
Education's Web Site, as of August 2005:
Abbreviations:
HOUSSE: High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
LEA: local education agency:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
TAC: Teacher Assistance Corps:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 21, 2005:
The Honorable John A. Boehner:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
Although research over the past 10 years has shown that teachers play a
significant role in improving student performance, many teachers,
especially those in high-poverty districts, lack competency in the
subjects they teach. Recognizing this, the Congress passed the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), which established qualification
requirements for the nation's approximately 3 million public school
teachers, and made states, districts, and schools responsible for
ensuring that teachers meet these requirements. Specifically, the act
requires that teachers of core academic subjects such as math and
science be "highly qualified" by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
[Footnote 1] To meet the requirements, teachers must (1) 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
they teach. Under the act, teachers may demonstrate subject matter
competency through different avenues, including a state-developed High
Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE). State HOUSSE
procedures give veteran teachers--generally those with 1 or more years
of experience--the opportunity to demonstrate subject matter competency
through teaching experience, professional development, coursework, and
other activities. If teachers do not meet the requirements, school
districts may be required to take certain actions, such as providing
additional professional development.[Footnote 2]
To help states and districts meet NCLBA's teacher qualification
requirements, the Congress has appropriated approximately $3 billion a
year in grants through the Title II, Part A (Title II), of NCLBA since
the law was passed. This amount constituted about 7 percent of all
federal funds made available to states in 2004 for supporting education
in kindergarten through 12th grade. Title II replaced the Eisenhower
Professional Development and Class-Size Reduction programs, allowing
states and districts to use funds for similar purposes, including
training of teachers and hiring of additional teachers to reduce class
size, as well as various other activities to help recruit, retain, and
develop teachers. The Department of Education (Education) monitors
states' implementation of NCLBA and provides assistance to states to
help them understand the teacher qualification requirements in the act
and appropriate uses of Title II funds.
In our prior work, we found that states and districts faced challenges
in ensuring that teachers met the requirements and also generally did
not have data systems that could track teacher qualifications by
subject in order to determine teachers' status in meeting the
requirements for those subjects.[Footnote 3] In response to
congressional requests, we are providing information on (1) the status
of state efforts to meet NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements,
(2) the use of Title II funds in selected districts, and (3) how
Education monitors states and assists them with implementation of the
requirements.
To obtain this information, we used multiple data collection methods.
First, to provide a national perspective, we reviewed teacher
qualification data in the consolidated performance reports that 47
states submitted to Education for the 2003-2004 school year, the latest
year for which these reports were available. The remaining 3 states,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico did not provide these data to
Education. We identified several factors that affect the accuracy of
these data and preclude a comparison of classes taught by teachers
meeting the requirements across states. However, on the basis of our
work, we determined state-reported percentages could be used to
demonstrate how close a particular state was to reaching the goal of
having all its teachers meet the requirements. The extent of the data
limitations is not currently known, and Education has followed up with
all states to obtain additional information on their processes for
collecting these data. Second, to provide information on how selected
states and districts are implementing the requirements and using Title
II funds, we visited and interviewed officials in 6 states--California,
Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--to collect in-
depth information on their efforts to meet teacher qualification
requirements and use of Title II funds. These states were selected for
variance in procedures for teachers to demonstrate subject matter
competency, reported quality of their data systems, amount of Title II
funds received, and geographic location. At the time of our site
visits, none of the states had been visited for monitoring purposes by
Education. Across these states, we visited 11 of the nation's 14,466
school districts, including both urban and rural districts that state
officials had identified as high-need based on their poverty level and
teacher challenges they experienced. We also interviewed officials from
Education, national education organizations, and teachers' unions. In
addition, we reviewed Title II monitoring reports completed by
Education as of July 2005. Finally, we analyzed Education's documents
and Web site, legislation, and other materials related to the teacher
qualification requirements and Title II funds. We conducted our work
between November 2004 and October 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The data reported by 47 states to Education suggest that the majority
of core academic classes were taught by teachers who met NCLBA
requirements during the 2003-2004 school year. States have improved in
their ability to track and report the percentage of core academic
classes taught by teachers who met NCLBA qualification requirements,
but several limitations affect the quality and precision of state-
reported data, making it difficult to determine the exact percentage of
core academic classes taught by teachers meeting the requirements. Five
of the 6 states that we visited had HOUSSE procedures in place that
offered multiple options for veteran teachers--generally those with 1
or more years of experience--to demonstrate subject matter competency,
such as through a combination of experience, academic coursework or
professional development, and leadership or service activities. Three
of these states also used other methods of evaluating teachers' subject
matter knowledge as part of their HOUSSE procedures, such as observing
teachers' performance or assessing teachers' contributions to student
achievement. Despite the number of ways allowed for teachers to
demonstrate subject matter competency, state and district officials and
national association representatives told us that teachers providing
instruction in multiple core academic subjects, such as teachers in
rural schools with a small teaching staff, would likely face difficulty
in meeting the requirements by the deadline of school year 2005-2006.
The 11 school districts that we visited used Title II funds to provide
professional development for teachers, particularly in core academic
subjects. Officials in the majority of these districts also told us
that NCLBA's emphasis on student achievement and on strategies
supported by research had led to improvements in the kinds of
professional development they funded with Title II funds. Officials in
7 of the 11 districts indicated that they continued to use Title II
funds to support class size reduction efforts, but some district
officials told us that they had begun shifting emphasis from class size
reduction to professional development. In identifying appropriate uses
of Title II funds, most districts that we visited considered student
achievement needs and then targeted programs, such as professional
development, to those academic subjects where students were lagging
behind. However, only a few of these efforts targeted specific groups
of teachers, such as teachers in high-poverty schools. Title II funds
are generally a small part of total funds available to the districts
for teacher initiatives, and districts visited also used non-Title II
funds to address their teachers' needs, including other federal, state,
and local funds. For example, one district used other federal funds to
help teachers prepare for subject matter exams; another district used
private foundation funds to provide financial incentives for teachers
who accepted positions in the district's most struggling schools.
Education monitored states' efforts to meet the teacher qualification
requirements through its Title II monitoring process and offered
assistance to states and districts that included professional
development for teachers, on-site visits, and guidance. In the 20 state
monitoring reports that Education had issued as of July 2005, it
identified several areas of concern related to states' implementation
of the teacher qualification requirements. For example, one frequent
finding was that states did not require teachers of history, geography,
civics/government, or economics to demonstrate subject matter
competency in each subject taught, as required under NCLBA, but instead
allowed them to demonstrate competency in the broad subject of social
studies. Education also offered a variety of assistance both to the
nation's approximately 3 million public school teachers and to state
officials responsible for implementing the requirements. To assist
teachers, Education offered professional development opportunities
during 2004 and 2005 that were attended by about 4,500 teachers and
distributed 255,000 "Toolkit for Teachers" information packets.
Assistance to state officials included site visits to discuss NCLBA's
teacher qualification requirements and offer technical assistance,
information on innovative state and local initiatives, and guidance.
Education officials said that the department's Web site has been an
important part of their efforts to implement NCLBA's teacher
qualification requirements. However, officials from most states and
districts that we visited told us that they were unaware of some of
these resources or had difficulty locating them, even though they use
Education's Web site to access information on teacher requirements and
programs. For example, officials from 4 states told us that information
on other states' efforts to improve teacher qualifications would be
helpful, but they were unaware that Education offered this online. Our
review of Education's Web site found that resources on NCLBA's teacher
qualification requirements were located on several different Web pages
that were sometimes not linked, making it challenging to find them.
To help states address the issues of teacher quality and ensure that
all teachers meet NCLBA's qualification requirements, we are
recommending that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make the
Web-based information on teacher qualification requirements more
accessible to users of its Web site through such activities as more
prominently displaying the link to state teacher initiatives or
enhancing the capability of the search function.
Background:
The NCLBA of 2001 amended and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, the largest and most comprehensive federal education
law. The focus of this legislation is on improving students' academic
performance. A growing body of research has shown that teacher
effectiveness is a significant factor in improving students' academic
performance. Research has also shown that many children, especially
those in high-poverty and high-minority schools, are assigned to
teachers who lack knowledge of the subjects they teach. For example, a
2004 report stated that one out of four high school courses was being
taught by teachers without a college major, or even a minor, in the
subject taught, and that students in high-poverty classrooms were more
likely to be assigned to such teachers than students in low-poverty
classrooms.[Footnote 4]
Historically, states have been responsible for developing and
administering their education systems, and most states have delegated
the authority for operating schools to local governments. States and
local governments provide most of the money for public elementary and
secondary education. Education reported that 49 percent of the revenue
for public elementary and secondary education in the 2001-2002 school
year came from state sources, 43 percent came from local sources, and 8
percent came from federal sources.[Footnote 5] As a result, state and
local dollars fund most major expenses, such as teacher salaries,
school buildings, and transportation. Although the autonomy of
districts varies, states are responsible for monitoring and assisting
their districts that, in turn, monitor and assist their schools.
The federal government has played a limited but important role in
education. Education's mission is to ensure equal access to education
and promote educational excellence throughout the nation by, among
other things, supporting state and local educational improvement
efforts, gathering statistics and conducting research, and helping to
make education a national priority. Education is responsible for
providing assistance to states to help them understand the provisions
or requirements of applicable laws and oversees and monitors how states
implement them. With the passage of NCLBA, which requires public school
teachers to be highly qualified in every core academic subject they
teach,[Footnote 6] the federal government for the first time
established specific criteria for teachers.
The act requires all teachers of core academic subjects to have a
bachelor's degree, state certification, and demonstrable subject matter
competency for each core subject taught.[Footnote 7] Under the act,
teachers may not have state certification requirements waived on an
emergency, temporary, or provisional basis. According to the Education
Commission of the States, every state required 4 years of college
preparation for teacher certification as of 1974. However, ensuring
that all teachers are certified and can demonstrate competency in the
subject matter they teach presents a new challenge for many states.
Allowable ways for teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency
vary depending upon a teacher's experience and the grade level being
taught. (See fig. 1.) For example, elementary teachers new to the
profession must pass a state test to demonstrate subject knowledge and
teaching skills. States have the flexibility to identify and approve
such tests for new teachers, as well as establish the passing scores on
the tests. Middle school and high school teachers have a number of
options available to them for demonstration of subject matter
competency, including a college major or a state test in the subject
taught. In addition to the options available for new teachers, veteran
teachers have an additional avenue for demonstrating subject matter
competency through their state's HOUSSE procedures.[Footnote 8]
Figure 1: Federal Teacher Qualification Criteria:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Must be a rigorous state test assessing subject and teaching skills
in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic
elementary curriculum.
[B] Must be a rigorous state test in the academic subject taught.
[C] An example is the attainment of a National Board Certification in
the subject and grade level taught.
[End of figure]
States can make the HOUSSE option available to veteran teachers at all
grade levels. The act sets forth some general criteria for states to
use in developing an acceptable evaluation standard. For example, the
standard must be developed in a way that provides objective and
coherent information about the teacher's attainment of core content
knowledge, must be aligned with state academic content and student
achievement standards, and must be uniformly applied to all teachers of
the same subject and grade level in the state.
In March 2004, Education announced additional flexibilities to help
teachers who deliver instruction in multiple core academic subjects and
science teachers meet the requirements. Education announced that
veteran teachers who provide instruction in multiple core academic
subjects will be able to demonstrate their subject matter competency
through a single set of procedures, such as a single, streamlined
HOUSSE covering multiple academic subjects. Education also announced
that teachers in eligible rural areas who teach multiple core academic
subjects and meet the requirements in at least one of those subjects
would have additional time to demonstrate subject matter competency in
the other subjects. Further, Education allowed states to rely on their
own certification requirements for science to determine specific
science areas in which teachers will be required to demonstrate subject
matter competency. For example, if a state certified teachers in the
general field of science, then a teacher may demonstrate subject matter
competency in the general science area instead of each separate science
subject, such as physics or biology.
According to Education's August 2005 nonregulatory guidance, the NCLBA
teacher qualification requirements apply to special education teachers
who provide instruction in core academic subjects, such as teachers in
self-contained classrooms.[Footnote 9] These teachers may demonstrate
subject matter competency by using any of the options allowed to other
teachers under NCLBA.
Qualification requirements for special education teachers were modified
in the December 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).[Footnote 10] The reauthorized IDEA
allowed some special education teachers additional flexibility in terms
of meeting subject matter competency requirements. First, new special
education teachers at the elementary level who are teaching exclusively
children with significant cognitive disabilities may use the state
HOUSSE procedures to demonstrate subject matter competency, an option
otherwise reserved under NCLBA to veteran teachers.[Footnote 11]
Second, new special education teachers who teach multiple core academic
subjects exclusively to special education students and already meet the
requirements in mathematics, language arts, or science, have 2 years
after hiring to demonstrate subject matter competency in the other
subjects taught. Teachers in this second category may also do this
through the HOUSSE process, including a single evaluation covering all
academic subjects taught. Finally, veteran special education teachers
who teach multiple core academic subjects exclusively to special
education students have the option of demonstrating subject matter
competency through a multisubject HOUSSE, consolidated to assess
teachers' subject matter knowledge in multiple subjects through a
single process.
The deadline for teachers to meet the requirements depends on the type
of school in which they work. Starting with the first day of the 2002-
2003 school year, all new teachers hired into school programs supported
with Title I funds must demonstrate compliance with the requirements
immediately upon hire.[Footnote 12] Most other teachers have until the
end of 2005-2006 school year to meet the requirements in the law. The
current timelines for teachers to meet the requirements are shown in
figure 2.[Footnote 13]
Figure 2: Phase-in of Teacher Qualification Requirements:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Prior GAO work found that states and districts were experiencing
challenges implementing NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements.
Among the most commonly cited challenges were difficulties with teacher
recruitment and retention resulting from factors such as low teacher
pay, lack of adequate professional development opportunities, and
difficulty developing and implementing state data systems for tracking
teacher qualifications.[Footnote 14] We found that challenges were
especially acute in small, isolated rural districts where teachers
often had to teach multiple subjects across different grade
levels.[Footnote 15] Furthermore, although we found that 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--many states did not require them to demonstrate subject
matter competency. As the result, we concluded that state-certified
special education teachers who were assigned to teach core academic
subjects might not be positioned to meet NCLBA requirements.[Footnote
16] In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, states and districts faced
with large numbers of displaced teachers and students may have
additional challenges tracking teacher qualification status and
ensuring that all teachers meet the requirements by the deadline.
Education indicated that it will work with affected states and school
districts to determine what flexibility will be needed with regard to
implementing the teacher qualification requirements.
Federal funding for teacher initiatives was provided prior to NCLBA,
but the act increased the level of funding to help states and districts
implement the teacher qualification requirements. Prior to NCLBA, the
Eisenhower Professional Development and Class-Size Reduction programs
provided funds to the states primarily for professional development in
mathematics and science and efforts to reduce class size for students
in kindergarten through third grade. Title II replaced these two
programs, providing states and districts with approximately $2.85
billion for fiscal year 2002 to help them implement various initiatives
for raising teacher and principal qualifications--$740 million more
than provided in fiscal year 2001 under the previous two programs. In
fiscal year 2004, Title II provided $2.93 billion to states and
districts through Improving Teacher Quality State Grants.
The formula currently used to allocate funds to states and districts is
similar to the formula used under the Eisenhower Professional
Development and the Class-Size Reduction programs and takes into
account poverty and student enrollment. Specifically, the amount of
Title II funds that each state or district receives is based on its
2001 allocation under the two previous programs, the number of children
aged 5 to 17, and the number of those children residing in families
with incomes below the poverty line.[Footnote 17] After reserving up to
1 percent of the funds for administrative purposes, states allocate 95
percent of the remaining funds to the districts. They retain 2.5
percent to support state-level teacher initiatives and allocate the
remaining 2.5 percent to the state agency for higher education to
support partnerships between higher education institutions and high-
need districts that work together to provide professional development
to teachers.
While there is no formula in NCLBA for districts to allocate funds to
specific schools, the act requires states to ensure that districts
target funds to those schools with the highest number of teachers who
are not highly qualified, the largest class sizes, or that have been
identified to be in need of improvement. In addition, districts
applying for Title II funds from their states are required to conduct a
districtwide needs assessment to identify their teacher quality needs.
Among other things, the needs assessment should identify those needs
that must be addressed if the district is to have all its teachers
meeting NCLBA's requirements by the deadline. The needs assessment
should take into account activities needed to provide teachers with the
means for helping students meet challenging state and local academic
achievement standards. Districts must involve teachers in the
development of their needs assessment and may consider a variety of
factors, such as teacher and student achievement data and projections
of professional development necessary to help all teachers meet NCLBA's
qualification requirements.
Under Title II, acceptable uses of funds include teacher certification
activities, professional development in a variety of core academic
subjects, and recruitment and retention initiatives, including hiring
teachers in order to reduce class size. (See app. I for state and
district authorized activities.) Some of these activities, such as
recruitment of new teachers and professional development in math and
science, could be funded under the Eisenhower Professional Development
and Class-Size Reduction programs as well. However, states and
districts have more flexibility in how to spend Title II funds than was
previously possible. For example, while under the Class-Size Reduction
Program, funds could be spent on financial incentives and mentoring
programs for new teachers only, Title II funds can be used for existing
teachers as well, if the district identifies a need. While the
Eisenhower program focused primarily on professional development in
math and science, allowable activities under Title II may include any
subject. Under NCLBA, professional development is considered to be an
important component of the overall strategy to improve the quality of
teaching and raise student achievement, and the law provides the
definition of professional development.[Footnote 18]
In addition to using Title II funds for the purposes of raising teacher
qualifications, districts can also transfer these funds to most other
NCLBA programs to meet their educational priorities. Specifically,
districts are allowed to transfer up to 50 percent of the funds
allocated to them under most major NCLBA programs, including Title II,
into other programs under NCLBA.[Footnote 19] Thus, for example,
districts may transfer a portion of their Title II funds into Title I
for initiatives designed to improve student achievement.
Regardless of whether or not districts transfer funds under the
transferability option, they can spend non-Title II funds, such as
Title I funds, to support teacher initiatives. Under NCLBA, districts
are required to spend at least 5 percent of their Title I funds on
helping teachers meet the qualification requirements. Additionally,
schools in the district that do not meet their student proficiency
goals for 2 or more consecutive years are required to spend at least 10
percent of their Title I funds to provide the school's teachers and
principals with high-quality professional development.
States must prepare and publicly disseminate an Annual State Report
Card with information on the professional qualifications of teachers in
the state, the percentage of such teachers on emergency or provisional
credentials, and the percentage of core academic classes being taught
by teachers who do not meet NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements.
Further, Title I of NCLBA requires districts and schools to inform
parents about the qualifications of their children's teachers.
Districts are required to notify parents of all students attending
Title I schools that they have the right to request information about
the qualifications of their child's teacher. Schools must further
notify parents if their child has been taught by a teacher who did not
met NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements for 4 or more
consecutive weeks.
The accountability provisions under Title I of NCLBA require every
state and district receiving Title I funds to develop and submit a plan
for how it intends to meet the teacher qualification requirements,
along with other provisions of the act such as adopting challenging
academic content and student achievement standards. The state plan must
establish each district's and school's annual measurable objectives for
increasing the number of teachers meeting qualification requirements
and receiving high-quality professional development with the goal of
ensuring that all teachers meet the requirements by the end of the 2005-
2006 school year. In addition, beginning with the 2002-2003 school
year, districts receiving Title I funds are required to annually report
to the state on their progress toward state-set objectives, and all
states are required to submit an annual report to Education detailing
state progress in meeting the annual measurable objectives regarding
teacher qualification requirements. Under NCLBA, school districts that
do not ensure that their teachers meet the qualification requirements
must implement certain actions, such as additional professional
development. However, their overall funding levels from Education are
not affected[Footnote 20]. If states do not meet the requirements for
reporting on the qualifications of their teachers, the Secretary of
Education has the authority under NCLBA to withhold state
administrative funds.
Education monitors states' progress in implementing the requirements
under both Title I and Title II of the act, as well as provides
assistance to them. Beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, Title I
of the act requires Education to publicly report the annual progress of
states, districts, and schools in meeting the measurable objectives for
ensuring that all teachers meet the qualification requirements by the
deadline.
States Have Made Progress in Meeting Teacher Qualification
Requirements, but Challenges Remain:
The available data suggest that the majority of core academic courses
were taught by qualified teachers in 2003-2004. States have made
progress in tracking and reporting teacher qualification data, but
challenges remain in reporting precise results. States offered multiple
options for veteran teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency
as part of their HOUSSE procedures, but the rigor of these procedures
varied across the states that we visited. Selected state and district
officials told us that certain groups of teachers would likely face
challenges meeting the requirements by the 2005-2006 deadline.
Most States Reported That the Majority of Teachers Are Qualified, but
Some Data Issues Remain:
The data reported by 47 states suggest that the majority of core
academic classes were taught by teachers who met NCLBA requirements
during the 2003-2004 school year.[Footnote 21] Most of these states
reported that nearly all of their core academic classes were being
taught by teachers who met the requirements. However, data for most
states appear to show that core academic classes in low-poverty schools
were more likely to be taught by teachers who met the requirements than
classes in high-poverty schools. [Footnote 22] The data also suggest
that a higher percentage of elementary school classes were taught by
teachers who met the requirements than secondary school classes. State-
reported percentages for each of the 47 states are shown in appendix
II.[Footnote 23] Data limitations preclude a comparison among states
but, on the basis of our work, we determined state-reported percentages
could be used to demonstrate how close a particular state was to
reaching the goal of having all its teachers meet the requirements.
States have improved in their ability to track and report the
percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who met NCLBA
qualifications. Reports from 2002 and 2003 from national education
organizations, such as the Education Commission of the States, showed
that few states were able to track and report these data. Similarly, in
our 2003 report on the NCLBA teacher qualification provisions,
officials in 7 of the 8 states we visited told us they did not have
data systems capable of tracking teacher qualifications for each core
subject.[Footnote 24] But by 2005, 47 states reported teacher
qualification data to Education for the 2003-2004 school year.
Officials in the 6 states that we visited told us that they had
improved their data systems, either by creating a new system or by
redesigning their existing system to collect information required under
NCLBA. For example, several states merged their state-level teacher
qualification systems with their district-level class assignment
systems to enable them to determine whether classes were being taught
by teachers who met the requirements. Education officials also told us
the 2003-2004 data had considerably improved from earlier years and
that next year's data will accurately reflect the status of state
efforts to implement the teacher qualification requirements.
Despite this progress, several issues limit the quality and precision
of state-reported data and make it difficult to determine the exact
percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers meeting NCLBA
qualification requirements. First, district officials in 3 of the 6
states that we visited told us that they had excluded classes taught by
special education teachers from their calculations;[Footnote 25] state
officials in all 6 site visit states said these teachers faced
particular challenges in meeting the requirements. Second, states
relied on the data districts provided, but state officials generally
noted that data collection processes varied by district, and that the
quality of the data could vary as well. For example, two districts that
we visited in 1 state reported data that were based on an incorrect
assumption about which teachers met the requirements,[Footnote 26] and
therefore included some teachers as meeting the requirements when they
had not. Education also identified data problems in 13 of the 20 states
for which it issued monitoring reports by July 2005.[Footnote 27] The
impact and magnitude of these problems on state reports is unclear;
state-reported data may under-or overstate the percentage of classes
taught by teachers who met the requirements, depending on the nature of
the data problem. Education has contracted with a research organization
to follow up with states to identify any data issues that may have
affected state-reported data, such as states excluding certain teachers
subject to NCLBA's qualification requirements from their
calculations.[Footnote 28]
States Offered Multiple Options for Veteran Teachers to Meet the
Requirements:
Five of the 6 site visit states had HOUSSE procedures in place for
veteran teachers--those generally with 1 or more years of experience--
to demonstrate subject matter competency, and the procedures included
many different options for teachers to use as part of HOUSSE. The
HOUSSE procedures in these states included the use of a point system
that allowed veteran teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency
by earning points in categories of experience, academic coursework or
professional development, and leadership or service activities, as well
as for evidence of publications, presentations, or awards. Colorado
officials said they did not have a HOUSSE but allowed teachers to
demonstrate subject matter competency through options typically
included in other states' HOUSSE procedures, such as a combination of
college coursework and professional development options.[Footnote 29]
Figure 3 presents an overview of HOUSSE point systems from the 5 states
we visited that had them in place. (App. III shows HOUSSE point systems
from 2 site visit states.)
Figure 3: Overview of HOUSSE Point Systems in Site Visit States:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Kansas and Maryland required teachers to earn a minimum number of
points in this category.
[B] The maximum points listed are for regular education teachers.
Special education teachers may have different maximums.
[C] Maryland required elementary teachers to earn a minimum of 40
points in this category and middle and high school teachers a minimum
of 30 points.
[D] Maryland combined leadership, activities, service, awards,
presentations and publications into a single category with a maximum of
10 points.
[E] Tennessee allowed teachers to earn up to 40 points for classroom
teaching experience and up to an additional 12 points for teaching
content courses at a postsecondary institution.
[F] Tennessee recently revised its evaluation system to emphasize
assessment of teachers' subject matter knowledge. This updated
evaluation system places greater emphasis on the content taught and is
performed by evaluators trained in the new evaluation format. Teachers
evaluated under the new system can use that as a stand-alone option for
meeting all the subject matter competency requirements under the
state's HOUSSE. Teachers evaluated under the old system can earn up to
30 points through the state's point system--up to 20 of those points
can be earned for positive evaluations, and up to 10 points are given
to teachers who attained an advanced level of performance under the
Tennessee Career Ladder Evaluation System, which had been in existence
between 1985 and 1997. Although teachers can continue using the former
versions of state evaluations to earn points toward demonstration of
subject matter competency, officials indicated that the new evaluation
system is now used statewide to assess the performance of all teachers.
[End of figure]
In addition to the categories above, the point systems in two states
that we visited also included the option for teachers to demonstrate
subject matter competency through advanced certification. Teachers in
Maryland and Tennessee could earn all of the required points by
achieving National Board Certification.[Footnote 30]
In addition to the point system, the HOUSSE procedures in some site
visit states offered alternatives for demonstrating subject matter
competency. For example, teachers in Tennessee could demonstrate
subject matter competency through multiple observations of their
performance completed by trained evaluators or the data showing their
effect on student achievement. Teachers in California who were unable
to obtain the required number of points through the point system could
use evidence of positive evaluations of their performance in the
classroom or prepare a portfolio of their work.[Footnote 31]
Our review of HOUSSE procedures in states that we visited, particularly
the analysis of the points they allowed teachers to count for different
activities, showed that they varied in the weight given to these
activities. The extent to which certain activities reflect teachers'
subject matter knowledge may affect the rigor of these
procedures.[Footnote 32] For example, as shown in figure 3, Rhode
Island allowed experience to count for about one-fourth of the 100
points required for demonstrating subject matter competency, but the
other 4 states with HOUSSE procedures allowed experience to count for
about one-half of the points to be earned. Officials in Colorado
indicated that they had chosen not to count experience toward teachers'
demonstration of subject matter competency because they did not believe
that experience would necessarily translate into improved subject
knowledge. However, Colorado permitted relevant travel to count toward
demonstration of subject matter competency, whereas the other states
did not explicitly include travel in their HOUSSE.
Some site visit states also set a minimum number of points to be earned
in certain categories, while other states did not require teachers to
earn points from those categories. Specifically, Kansas and Maryland
required teachers to earn at least a portion of the total number of
points they needed to demonstrate subject matter competency through
college coursework, while other states did not require a minimum number
of points in that category. States also differed in the number of
categories in which teachers had to earn points. For example, teachers
in Rhode Island were required to earn points from at least three
different categories, such as college-level coursework and professional
development in the content area. In contrast, teachers in Maryland
could earn all points necessary for demonstration of subject matter
competency from a single category. California, Kansas, Rhode Island,
and Tennessee also set a requirement that some activities had been
completed within a recent period of time.[Footnote 33] For example,
Kansas required professional development and service activities to have
taken place within the last 6 years to earn points toward demonstrating
subject matter competency under HOUSSE.
Some of the options that site visit states permitted as part of their
HOUSSE procedures relied on improved student performance or
observations of teachers' classroom performance. Tennessee allowed
teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency by using data that
show their actual contribution to students' achievement in that
subject.[Footnote 34] To use this option for the purposes of
demonstrating subject matter competency, teachers must demonstrate that
the most recent 3-year average gain in the achievement of their
students is not detectably different from or is better than the average
gain for all students in the state. At the same time, Tennessee and
California both counted positive evaluations of teachers' classroom
performance as evidence that could be counted toward subject matter
competency. Although both states based these evaluations on uniform
performance standards established by the state, officials in these
states told us that they did not oversee the implementation of these
evaluations. As a result, we determined that they could not effectively
ensure the quality of evaluations. While we did not conduct an in-depth
review of how the evaluations of teachers' performance were carried
out, we identified two areas of concern for using this method as an
objective state standard. First, the number and duration of the
evaluation sessions may not provide enough information to determine
subject matter competency. Second, these evaluations may be conducted
by personnel who are also responsible for hiring and retaining teachers
in the district, and thus these evaluators may not be objective. In one
small rural district that we visited, the assistant superintendent
responsible for evaluating the teachers' subject matter competency told
us that the evaluation process was subjective.
Finally, while most states that we visited tried to ensure that
activities accepted as part of their HOUSSE procedures were connected
to the subject area that the teacher taught, Maryland's HOUSSE
procedure awarded points for activities not directly related to the
subject matter, such as professional development on instructional
strategies and principles. Officials there indicated that the majority
of points had to be earned from activities specific to the subject
matter, and that the state's HOUSSE procedure sought to recognize both
subject matter knowledge and the teachers' general teaching expertise.
Some educational experts have noted that the rigor of HOUSSE procedures
varied across states and expressed concerns that states whose
procedures offered less rigorous options may not adequately assess
teachers' subject matter knowledge. The experts we interviewed told us
that teachers who are not required to engage in activities directly
related to accumulating subject matter knowledge, such as completing
college coursework in a subject, may not increase their knowledge of
the subject taught. In addition, the experts commented that if
experience is heavily emphasized, teachers may not get the subject
matter knowledge they need to be effective in the classroom. States
with less rigorous procedures may not bring about improvements in
teachers' content knowledge or student performance. Officials from
Education confirmed that the rigor of HOUSSE procedures varied across
states, as is permitted under NCLBA.
Selected States and Districts Faced Implementation Challenges:
Although numerous ways exist for veteran teachers to demonstrate
subject matter competency, officials in site visit states and districts
and national association representatives told us that some teachers
providing instruction in multiple core academic subjects, such as
special education teachers and teachers in rural areas and specialized
school settings, may not meet the requirements by the deadline.
Officials in the states that we visited noted that special education
teachers would have the greatest difficulty in meeting the requirements
by the deadline, because they were originally certified in special
education rather than in a specific academic content area. In addition,
special education teachers frequently provide instruction in multiple
core academic subjects at the secondary level, creating challenges in
meeting the requirements for each subject. Officials also noted that
teachers in rural districts may face similar challenges. For example,
an official in one state described a rural district landlocked by
mountains where three high school teachers were responsible for
teaching all classes across all subjects and grades at the high school
level, and therefore had to meet the requirements for each subject.
Although under IDEA and Education's guidance certain special education
and rural teachers who already meet the requirements in one core
academic subject have additional time to meet the requirements for the
other subjects, officials were still concerned about whether these
teachers will be able to meet the requirements for all of the subjects.
Officials also reported challenges for middle school teachers who
frequently provide instruction in multiple core academic
subjects,[Footnote 35] as well as teachers in specialized school
settings, such as schools for students dismissed from their regular
schools as a result of behavioral problems. Officials from two
districts in one state that we visited told us that they had a large
number of these specialized schools, and officials there indicated that
teachers often had to teach multiple subjects to the same group of
students, making it difficult for them because they had to meet the
subject matter requirements in each subject taught. Education allowed
states to streamline HOUSSE procedures by developing a method for
veteran teachers of multiple core academic subjects to demonstrate
subject matter competency in all those subjects through a single
procedure. One of the states that we visited offered a streamlined
HOUSSE procedure for its teachers of multiple core academic subjects.
However, officials in the other states that we visited did not have a
single HOUSSE procedure for teachers of multiple subjects, and some of
them indicated that they would like more information on how to develop
one.
Officials in states and districts that we visited also told us that
schools will continue to have difficulty recruiting math and science
teachers who meet the requirements. Schools had difficulty recruiting
these secondary teachers even before NCLBA. These recruitment
shortfalls will likely continue after the 2005-2006 deadline passes, in
part because thereafter all newly hired teachers of core academic
subjects, not just those in Title I schools, will have to demonstrate
their subject matter competency before entering the classroom. Some
state and district officials told us that they were unable to restrict
hiring to teachers who met the requirements because there were not
enough candidates who had met the requirements to fill all of the open
positions. One state is altering its emergency certificate to
incorporate a time limit; this certificate will allow teachers to
provide instruction for up to 2 years before they have to fully meet
the subject matter competency requirements.[Footnote 36] While state
officials responsible for teacher licensing in the state acknowledged
that the new certificate does not meet the requirements of NCLBA, they
indicated that school districts might not be able to fill all their
open positions with teachers who meet the requirements.
We also found that 8 of the 11 districts either did not notify parents
when their children were assigned to teachers who did not meet the
requirements, as required under the act, or did not make the
notification entirely clear to the parents. Five districts in the
states that we visited did not send the letters to the parents, with
some district officials stating that they did not know that the letters
had to be sent. Officials in one state instructed districts not to send
the letters until the 2005-2006 deadline had passed. Three districts in
another state sent letters to the parents, but these letters did not
explicitly indicate that the teacher did not meet the requirements of
the law. For example, one district's letter said that the teacher "is a
dedicated professional who will always work in the best interest of
your child" and "holds a probationary certificate" without explaining
to the parents that probationary certificates do not meet NCLBA's
requirements.[Footnote 37]
Additionally, some officials did not know about other aspects of the
requirements, such as actions required for teachers not meeting the
requirements and to whom the requirements applied. For example,
officials in two states told us that they did not know what actions
districts or schools should take against teachers who did not meet the
requirements by the deadline. Officials in one district had fired
teachers because they did not meet the requirements. Other districts
generally had not fired teachers who did not meet the requirements but
wanted to know whether they should. There are no actions specified in
the NCLBA with respect to teachers' conditions of employment for those
who do not meet the requirements by the deadline. In addition,
officials in one district did not know until our visit that all
teachers of core academic subjects--not just those in Title I schools-
-would have to meet the requirements by the end of 2005-2006 school
year.
Education acknowledged the challenges that states may face in ensuring
that all teachers meet the requirements by the end of 2005-2006 school
year. On October 21, 2005, Education announced that states may have
until the end of the 2006-2007 school year to ensure that all their
teachers meet the requirements if they can demonstrate that they are
making good-faith effort toward that goal. As evidence of good-faith
efforts, states will need to meet the following four conditions: (1)
show that the state's requirements for teachers to demonstrate that
they are highly qualified are consistent with the law, (2) meet the
requirements for parental notification and public reporting, (3)
provide complete and accurate teacher qualification data to Education
in January 2006 for the 2004-2005 school year, and (4) take action to
ensure that poor and minority students are not taught by teachers who
do not meet the requirements at a higher rate than other students. The
letter also stated that no federal funds will be withheld from states
if they are unable to ensure that all their teachers meet the
requirements by the end of 2005-2006 school year, as long as these
states are implementing the law and making a good-faith effort to reach
that goal.
Despite the challenges experienced, state officials reported progress
in better positioning themselves to meet NCLBA requirements. Although
our 2003 report showed that states we visited generally did not have
data systems capable of tracking teacher qualifications for each core
subject teachers taught,[Footnote 38] officials told us that they had
improved their data systems since then. All of the states that we
visited had either created a new data system or redesigned their
existing data systems to collect information required under NCLBA. For
example, several states merged their state-level teacher qualification
systems with their district-level class assignment systems to enable
states to determine whether classes were being taught by teachers who
met the requirements. Another state redesigned its data system so that
it would capture teachers' status in meeting the requirements.
In addition to improving data systems, state officials also reported
taking steps to help more teachers meet the requirements. For example,
one of the states developed HOUSSE procedures that could be used to
demonstrate subject matter competency across multiple subjects. Under
those HOUSSE procedures, the same allowable activities, such as
professional development and leadership positions, could be counted for
more than one subject. Most states that we visited made some changes in
certification requirements or professional development standards to
make them more consistent with the requirements of NCLBA. For example,
two states created a separate certificate for middle school teachers
that incorporated subject matter competency requirements--a change that
would ensure that middle school teachers have demonstrated subject
matter competency.
District officials also reported taking steps, such as changing their
personnel policies, to ensure that more of their teachers meet the
requirements. For example, officials in two districts told us that they
had encouraged principals to consider dismissing teachers who were not
on track to meet the requirements. In another state, districts were
reassigning teachers to positions for which they met the requirements,
and one district's officials instituted a policy of preventing teachers
from transferring to any positions for which they did not meet the
requirements. Officials in most districts also told us that they have
incorporated NCLBA's teacher qualification criteria into their
screening of new candidates. Further, officials from 6 of the 11
districts that we visited told us that they were reducing the number of
teachers with emergency credentials.
Visited School Districts Most Often Used Title II Funds for
Professional Development:
The 11 districts that we visited used Title II funds to support
professional development for teachers, particularly in core academic
subjects. Officials in the majority of these districts indicated that
NCLBA had led to improvements in the kinds of professional development
they funded with Title II funds. Seven of the 11 districts that we
visited also continued to use the funds for class size reduction
efforts. However, district officials told us that they have begun
shifting emphasis from class size reduction to initiatives focused on
improving teacher qualifications. Most districts that we visited
considered student achievement needs in identifying appropriate uses of
Title II funds and targeted the funds to programs designed to help
teachers address those needs. Few initiatives in these districts
targeted specific groups of teachers, such as teachers in high-poverty
schools. In addition to using Title II, district officials told us they
used various other funding sources to support their teacher
initiatives, including other federal, state, and local funds.
All Visited Districts Used Title II Funds for Professional Development,
and Many of Them Used These Funds for Class Size Reduction:
All districts that we visited used Title II funds to provide
professional development to teachers and focused their efforts on
improving the quality of instruction in core academic subjects such as
reading and math. For example, one district used Title II funds to
provide summer workshops on research-based instructional strategies in
reading and paid for instructional coaches to support classroom
teachers throughout the year. Two districts reported spending Title II
funds on math coaches who perform tasks such as working with teachers
to develop lessons that reflected states' academic standards and
assisting them in using students' test data to identify and address
students' academic needs. In four districts, Title II professional
development expenditures included the cost of instructional materials,
and in one district Title II funds paid for substitute teachers while
regular teachers attended training.
In addition to spending for professional development in core academic
subjects, officials in 10 of the 11 districts reported using Title II
funds on professional development in other areas, such as on general
teaching strategies and professional development for nonteaching staff.
Most of these districts used at least some Title II funds for
professional development that focused on teaching skills and general
teaching strategies. For example, one district used Title II funds to
support a program for all teachers during their first 3 years of
employment with the district, including biweekly workshops on classroom
management, student assessment, and parental involvement. Another
district used the funds to help teachers understand the instructional
needs of gifted and talented students and to adjust teaching methods to
best address those students' needs. Seven districts also used Title II
funds to offer professional development for nonteaching staff, such as
school administrative personnel. For example, one district coordinated
with a postsecondary institution to train assistant principals on
becoming more effective educational leaders, while another district
used the funds to develop guidance counselors and social workers
employed in the district's schools.
Officials in the majority of the districts that we visited told us that
NCLBA's emphasis on student achievement and on strategies supported by
research had led to improvements in the kinds of professional
development they funded with Title II funds. Officials said they had
become much more selective when approving professional development
providers, looking for those programs that focused on intensive,
research-based instructional strategies. In one district, for example,
officials said that before NCLBA, providers were often selected on the
basis of their long-standing relationship with the district, whereas
now the district approved only those providers whose programs could be
substantiated by research-based evidence of effectiveness. They also
indicated that they had moved away from onetime workshops and begun to
emphasize ongoing professional development that provided teachers with
opportunities to reinforce and apply concepts learned. Furthermore,
district officials that we interviewed reported greater emphasis on
professional development opportunities in core academic subjects in
which NCLBA required students to be assessed. While officials in some
districts said that they were moving in the direction of higher-quality
professional development even before NCLBA, several of them indicated
that the passage of the act added urgency to these efforts.
Officials in 7 of the 11 districts that we visited told us that they
also used Title II funds to hire additional teachers to reduce class
size. Districts focused their class size reduction efforts on specific
grades, depending on their needs and other funding sources available.
For example, one district visited focused its Title II-funded class
size reduction efforts on the eighth grade because the state already
provided funding for reducing class size in other grades. Officials in
another district told us they planned to spend most of their Title II
allocation on class size reduction because class size reduction funding
from the state was insufficient. While class size reduction may
contribute to teacher retention and result in a more individualized
approach to student instruction, it also increases the number of
classrooms that need to be staffed. As a result, districts that are
already having problems with teacher recruitment may find it difficult
to find enough teachers who meet NCLBA's qualification requirements to
staff these classrooms. For example, one district visited used about
one-third of Title II funds for class size reduction, but district
officials indicated that recruitment difficulties forced them to
continue to hire teachers who did not meet NCLBA's qualification
requirements.
Our previous work found that classroom reduction expenditures amounted
to more than 50 percent of total Title II funds that districts spent
during 2002-2003 school year,[Footnote 39] a finding consistent with
Education's review of districts' Title II spending during the same time
period.[Footnote 40] Officials in states that we visited and
educational organization representatives that we interviewed told us
that districts continued to spend funds on activities developed under
the previous program. However, some state officials told us that they
were encouraging districts to expand their traditional uses of these
funds and to place a greater emphasis on initiatives designed to
increase teachers' effectiveness in the classroom.
In 6 districts that we visited, officials told us that they had begun
shifting away from class size reduction efforts to placing greater
emphasis on initiatives for existing teachers. For example, 2 of the
districts stopped spending Title II funds on class size reduction
efforts, and another district planned to eliminate class size reduction
expenditures in the next school year. Officials in 2 other districts
told us that while they still funded class size reduction efforts, they
had reduced the amount of Title II funds they spent for this purpose.
District officials indicated that they were now redirecting funds to
support initiatives designed to improve teachers' subject matter
knowledge and instructional skills, such as professional development.
In addition to undertaking professional development and class size
reduction efforts, 6 of the districts that we visited used Title II
funds to support recruitment and retention activities. For example, 2
districts used the funds to advertise open teaching positions, as well
as to attend recruitment events outside of the district to identify
qualified candidates. Another district used Title II funds to expand
its alternative certification program, which allowed qualified
candidates to teach while they worked to meet requirements for
certification. Two districts used Title II funds for bonuses to attract
successful administrators. To promote greater retention among new
teachers, 3 districts used Title II funds for mentoring activities. For
example, 1 of these districts reported using the funds to provide two
trained mentors for every new teacher. Ten of the 11 districts that we
visited did not use Title II funds to support programs that offered
additional pay to teachers based on their performance or other
qualifications. A few officials cited reasons for not using such
programs, such as the expense or the difficulties in ensuring that they
are implemented fairly.
Six of the districts that we visited reported taking advantage of
NCLBA's transferability option, with most of them transferring Title II
funds into Title V. Under Title V, districts receive funding to support
local education reform efforts in a broad range of areas, including
activities to improve the academic achievement of all students and
raise teacher effectiveness. For example, one district transferred
Title II funds into Title V for initiatives designed to address
students' academic needs, such as assessing their reading skills.
Districts officials indicated that they preferred to transfer funds
into Title V because it afforded them the most flexibility in spending
the funds. However, one district transferred Title II funds into Title
I to provide academic services in reading and math to middle school
students.
In addition to participating in activities funded with districts' own
Title II allocations, teachers also took part in activities supported
through Title II grants to universities and in state-level Title II
initiatives. Three of the four university-based grantees that we
visited focused on providing professional development to teachers in
math or science. For example, one program reviewed offered a 2-week
summer math workshop to prepare teachers for the subject matter exams
that, if passed, could be used to demonstrate subject matter
competency. Another university grantee developed a standards-based
online math program for middle school teachers based on the math
questions that students most frequently missed on the state's
assessment. While university officials administering that program said
that it could be used for teachers to earn points toward demonstration
of subject matter competency under NCLBA, they did not know how many
participants in the program had not yet met the requirements or how
many districts allowed teachers to apply their participation toward
earning points through the state's HOUSSE. Additionally, states used a
portion of Title II funds retained by state departments of education to
support professional development for teachers in core academic
subjects. In two states that we visited, officials reported that state
Title II initiatives specifically targeted teachers who had not met the
subject matter competency requirements of NCLBA; these initiatives
either offered them professional development in core academic subjects
or reimbursed them for taking college courses in the subjects taught.
Visited Districts Considered Student Achievement Needs in Identifying
Uses of Title II Funds:
Officials in the districts that we visited said that in deciding what
specific initiatives should be funded with Title II funds, such as the
types of professional development programs for teachers, they
considered student achievement needs and targeted the funds to programs
designed to help teachers address those needs.[Footnote 41] To identify
student achievement needs, these officials said that their districts
examined students' results on state assessments and a school's progress
in meeting annual student proficiency goals in core academic subjects,
as required under NCLBA.[Footnote 42] The districts then targeted their
Title II funds to programs for teachers to improve instruction in those
subjects in which students were lagging behind. For example, officials
in one district said that because math was an area in which schools did
not meet annual student proficiency goals, the district's Title II
expenditures were targeted to professional development programs in
math. In another district, the superintendent indicated that his
district had placed the primary focus of its Title II initiatives on
reading in early grades because schools in the district had not met
reading proficiency goals for elementary students in the past. Some
districts considered student achievement results in combination with
other factors to identify most appropriate uses of federal funds. For
example, officials in one district said that they looked at both
schools' student assessment results and teacher experience levels when
deciding where to place Title II-funded instructional coaches.
Officials in the districts that we visited said that they involved a
variety of stakeholders, such as teachers and parents, to help them
identify district needs that could be addressed with Title II funds.
The nature of stakeholder involvement varied across the districts that
we visited. For example, several districts administered a survey to
teachers, parents, and students, asking them about their perceptions of
the district and its needs. Another district administered an online
professional development survey to its teachers, asking them to assess
the type of professional development activities received. District
officials said they used the results of these surveys to decide how to
best spend Title II funds. In other districts, officials considered
stakeholders' perspectives in less structured ways. For example, in one
district that did not have a separate process for gathering
stakeholders' views prior to making funding decisions, officials said
that stakeholders' perspectives were still considered as the result of
the superintendent's regular meetings with school officials and parent
groups across the district.
While most districts that we visited targeted Title II funds to subject
areas that presented academic challenges to students, only a few of the
Title II funded initiatives were directed to specific groups of
teachers, such as teachers in high-poverty schools or teachers who had
not yet met the requirements of NCLBA. One district that we visited
targeted Title II dollars to teachers in high-poverty schools, funding
initiatives such as reimbursing these teachers for taking college
classes necessary for them to meet state certification requirements and
providing tuition for teachers in alternative certification programs
who agreed to teach in high-poverty schools. In four districts that we
visited, officials reported having initiatives specifically for
teachers who had not yet met NCLBA's qualification requirements. Some
of these initiatives offered reimbursement to teachers for taking
college courses or other professional development that they could use
to demonstrate compliance with NCLBA's requirements. Other initiatives
helped teachers prepare for subject matter exams and reimbursed the
registration fees of those who passed them to demonstrate subject
matter competency in the subject taught. While many professional
development programs supported with Title II funds were not necessarily
targeted to teachers who still needed to meet the requirements,
teachers who had not met the requirements could count their
participation toward demonstration of subject matter competency under
NCLBA by earning points through their state's HOUSSE.
In each of the districts that we visited, any teacher could participate
in at least some professional development or other programs supported
with Title II funds, and district officials indicated that they had
made efforts to address district-wide teacher needs. Ten of the 11
districts that we visited had a large number of high-poverty
schools,[Footnote 43] and by focusing on districtwide teacher needs,
district officials could also address the needs of teachers who
provided instruction to low-income students. For example, the
superintendent of 1 district, in which all teachers could participate
in Title II initiatives, credited the professional development funded
through Title II with the narrowing of the achievement gap between the
district's low-income and other students. The statutory formula that
states used to allocate Title II funds to the districts takes into
consideration their poverty levels,[Footnote 44] and several officials
we interviewed told us they believed Title II funds were generally
reaching districts with the greatest need.
Visited Districts Used Non-Title II Funds to Support Teacher
Initiatives:
Title II funds are generally a small part of total funds available to
the districts for teacher initiatives, and visited districts used
various non-Title II funds to address their teacher needs, including
other federal, state, and local funds. In two districts, for example,
officials told us that Title II funds represented less than half of all
the funds they spent on teacher initiatives. Moreover, districts
received federal funds under different programs, and Title II
constitutes a relatively small proportion of all federal funds they
could use for teacher initiatives. In one district visited, for
example, Title II funds constituted about 13 percent of the total
federal funds available, with the bulk of the district's federal money
coming from Title I. Our prior work also showed that districts planned
to spend much larger percentages of other federal, state, and local
funds than Title II funds on teacher-related activities, but in high-
poverty districts Title II funds constituted a larger share of total
funds spent on these activities than in low-poverty districts.[Footnote
45]
Although Title II was one of many resources available to the districts,
many district officials we interviewed said that Title II funds played
a significant role in their teacher improvement efforts. For example,
officials in one district credited Title II-funded professional
development with helping teachers prepare for subject matter tests they
needed to pass in order to demonstrate subject matter competency under
NCLBA. In another district, officials said that their initiatives to
support teachers, such as coaches, would not have been possible without
Title II funding.
Districts that we visited supported a variety of teacher programs with
non-Title II funds. Among other federal funds, Title I was one of the
most frequently cited sources for supporting teacher initiatives. For
example, two districts used Title I funds to hire coaches or
consultants to help individual teachers in high-poverty schools become
more effective in the classroom. A few of the initiatives funded with
Title I were specifically designed to help teachers meet NCLBA's
qualification requirements. For example, one district used the funds to
reimburse teachers who passed the subject matter exam for their
registration fees and for taking additional college coursework to help
them meet NCLBA's subject matter competency requirements. In addition
to using federal funds, districts also used state funds for teacher
initiatives. For example, districts in one state received funds from
the state for activities such as professional development to support
all beginning teachers. Finally, districts used local and private funds
to support various teacher initiatives. For example, one district used
local funds to reimburse teachers for taking additional courses to
raise their qualifications, while another district used private
foundation funds to provide housing allowances for high-performing
teachers who accepted positions in the district's most struggling inner-
city schools.
Two districts that we visited had implemented or planned to implement
differential compensation programs that offered financial rewards to
teachers, such as onetime bonuses or salary increases, based on their
performance or other qualifications. One school district in Tennessee
made recruitment, retention, and salary bonuses available to teachers
who had demonstrated a record of effectiveness and taught in some of
the district's neediest schools.[Footnote 46] To assess teachers'
eligibility for these bonuses, the district used the data showing
teachers' impact on student performance available through the state's
system of measuring students' achievement gains from year to year. This
initiative is currently supported with both Title I and Title II funds.
A school district in Colorado approved a plan for a districtwide
differential compensation system that would provide teachers with
multiple opportunities to increase their yearly pay, including gaining
additional knowledge and skills, assuming positions in hard-to-fill
subjects or hard-to-staff schools, earning successful performance
evaluations, or meeting annual objectives for students'
performance.[Footnote 47] This initiative will be funded through a
local property tax increase that will create a trust fund to ensure
that the new pay system can be permanently sustained.[Footnote 48]
While officials in that district acknowledged that Title II funds could
be used to support differential compensation initiatives, they
indicated that Title II alone could not sustain this system.
Officials in the districts that we visited said that they did not look
at Title II funds in isolation from other funds when making funding
decisions, but rather they attempted to leverage different funding
sources available to address their teacher needs. For example,
officials in one district said that the district's use of Title I funds
for teacher recruitment purposes allowed them to focus Title II funds
on the coaching program for teachers.
Education Monitored States and Offered Assistance on Implementing the
Requirements, but Some of Education's Information Was Not Readily
Accessible:
Education monitored states and offered assistance to help teachers meet
NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements. In its monitoring reports,
Education identified areas of concern related to states' implementation
of the teacher qualification requirements. Education's assistance
efforts included professional development opportunities and information
packets on NCLBA's requirements. The agency also conducted site visits
to states to discuss NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements and
offer technical assistance. Although several key resources about
NCLBA's teacher requirements can be reached only through Education's
Web site, officials in most states and districts that we visited told
us that they had difficulty locating these resources or were unaware of
them. Our review of Education's Web site showed that several key
resources on NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements were located on
different Web pages that were not linked, making it challenging to find
them.
Education Monitored States' Implementation of Teacher Qualification
Requirements:
Education provided written feedback to states on their implementation
of NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements through the Title II
monitoring process. Education began Title II monitoring in June 2004
and, as of July 15, 2005, had conducted monitoring visits to 29 states
and the District of Columbia and released reports documenting findings
to 20 of the states. Reports were generally released to states about 1
to 3 months after the monitoring visit. Education officials reported
that states had an opportunity to respond prior to the release of
monitoring reports, and to develop a plan to address findings. None of
our site visit states received a monitoring report in time to be
included in this analysis.
In these 20 monitoring reports, Education issued findings to states
that did not fully implement NCLBA requirements. States most frequently
received findings for not ensuring that teachers hired into Title I
schools or with Title II funds met the teacher requirements (14
states), as required by NCLBA. Another frequent finding was that state-
reported data did not adequately reflect the status of teachers in
meeting the requirements (13 states). For example, several states could
not report data on the percentage of classes taught by teachers not
meeting NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements for special
education or secondary school classes.
In addition, some states received findings for not requiring certain
teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency as required under
NCLBA. For example, 9 states received findings for allowing teachers of
history, geography, civics/government, or economics to demonstrate
subject matter competency in the broad area of social studies instead
of in each subject taught. Seven states received findings for not
requiring new elementary school teachers to demonstrate competency in
the manner required by NCLBA. Education found that all 7 states had not
implemented a test for new elementary school teachers to demonstrate
subject matter competency or the test was optional. Eight states
received findings related to the demonstration of competency for middle
and high school teachers, and 7 states received findings related to the
demonstration of competency for special education teachers. In states
that did not require certain teachers to demonstrate competency as
required by NCLBA, state data do not fully reflect the percentage of
classes taught by teachers who met NCLBA teacher qualification
requirements.
Table 1 lists the major findings related to NCLBA's teacher
qualification requirements.
Table 1: Major Findings from Education's Title II Monitoring:
Hiring:
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
Did not ensure that teachers hired into Title I schools or with Title
II funds met the requirements;
Number of states with finding: 14.
Reporting and data:
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
Did not include all required data elements on state report card;
Number of states with finding: 10.
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
State-reported data did not adequately reflect the status of teachers
in meeting the requirements;
Number of states with finding: 13.
Demonstration of subject matter competency:
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
Did not require a state test for new elementary teachers to demonstrate
subject matter competency;
Number of states with finding: 8.
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
Requirements for veteran elementary teachers were not sufficient to
demonstrate subject matter competency;
Number of states with finding: 5.
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
Requirements for middle or high school teachers were not sufficient to
demonstrate subject matter competency;
Number of states with finding: 8.
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
Did not require teachers of history, geography, civics/government, or
economics to demonstrate subject matter competency in each subject
taught;
Number of states with finding: 9.
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
Did not require special education teachers to demonstrate subject
matter competency in subjects taught or have not determined the status
of these teachers;
Number of states with finding: 7.
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
State HOUSSE procedures did not meet criteria in the law;
Number of states with finding: 1.
Development of annual measurable objectives and plan for meeting the
requirements:
Teacher qualification requirements that states did not fully implement:
Did not develop annual measurable objectives for districts and schools;
Number of states with finding: 12.
Source: GAO analysis of Education's Title II monitoring reports.
Note: Information presented for 20 monitoring reports reviewed by GAO.
[End of table]
Of the 20 states that received monitoring reports, 19 states did not
receive a finding regarding their HOUSSE procedures, even though some
experts have questioned the rigor of HOUSSE procedures in many states.
Through the monitoring process, Education is reviewing state HOUSSE
procedures to ensure that they are consistent with NCLBA's criteria.
Table 2 lists NCLBA's criteria for state HOUSSE procedures.
Table 2: NCLBA's Criteria for HOUSSE Procedures:
States can establish a process for evaluating teacher knowledge and
ability based on the standard that meets the following criteria:
* Is set by the state for both grade-appropriate academic subject
matter knowledge and teaching skills.
* Is aligned with challenging state academic content and student
academic achievement standards and developed in consultation with core
content specialists, teachers, principals, and school administrators.
* Provides objective, coherent information about the teacher's
attainment of core content knowledge in the academic subjects taught.
* Is applied uniformly to all teachers in the same academic subject and
the same grade level throughout the state.
* Takes into consideration, but not be based primarily on, the time the
teacher has been teaching in the academic subject.
* Is made available to the public upon request.
* May involve multiple objective measures of teacher competency.
Source: NCLBA, Pub.L. No. 107-110, section 9101(23)(C)(ii).
[End of table]
As long as their HOUSSE procedures meet each of NCLBA's criteria,
states have had flexibility in developing HOUSSE under NCLBA. Among 19
states with HOUSSE procedures that were determined to meet NCLBA's
criteria were one state with a HOUSSE that allowed for evaluations of
teachers' classroom performance and several states in which teachers
meet HOUSSE requirements by being fully certified to teach their
subject. Education officials noted that evaluations of teachers'
performance could be accepted as part of state HOUSSSE procedures as
long as they are rigorous and objective measures of teachers' subject
matter knowledge that are based on multiple observations and performed
by trained evaluators. In addition, Education officials told us that
while teacher certification in itself would not be sufficient for
demonstration of subject matter competency, several states provided
evidence that was accepted by Education showing that their
certification requirements met the criteria for HOUSSE in the law. In
the one state that received a finding related to its HOUSSE, teachers
were allowed to earn more than half of the points necessary to meet
HOUSSE requirements through experience. The state received a finding
because NCLBA does not allow HOUSSE to be based primarily on teaching
experience.
Eleven of the 20 state monitoring reports included written
commendations from Education for state efforts to improve professional
development, strengthen teacher preparation, or develop data systems
that track teacher qualifications. Eight states received commendation
for improving or offering high-quality professional development for
teachers. For example, Arkansas was commended for requiring every
teacher to complete 60 hours of professional development each year and
devoting considerable state funding to professional development. Seven
states were commended for strengthening teacher preparation. For
example, Georgia was commended for aligning all teacher preparation to
state standards for student learning. Six states were commended for new
or improved data systems for tracking teacher qualifications. For
example, Mississippi received a commendation for tracking teachers'
qualifications, certifications, and assignments, and linking those
factors to individual students' progress.
Education Offered Assistance to Teachers and States on the
Implementation of Teacher Qualification Requirements:
Education offered several types of assistance to help the nation's 3
million public school teachers meet NCLBA's teacher qualification
requirements, including professional development opportunities.
Education offered professional development opportunities workshops in
which about 4,500 teachers have participated since June 2004. These
workshops and related materials were also made available online free of
charge. Teachers accessed these workshops online through Education's
Web site or through www.teacherquality.us, a Web site Education uses to
provide information on Education's teacher initiatives. In addition,
teachers can determine whether their state would accept these workshops
as credit toward the state HOUSSE requirement online. As of September
2005, all states and the District of Columbia were awarding points for
teachers' participation in these workshops as part of their HOUSSE
procedures or for teacher recertification.
Education also offered assistance directly to teachers to help them
understand NCLBA's requirements and gave teachers an opportunity to
provide feedback about what additional support they need. Education
distributed 255,000 "Toolkit for Teachers" information packets that
provide information about NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements.
The toolkit addressed frequently asked questions that are relevant to
teachers, such as whether NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements
apply to special education teachers. In addition, Education offered a
series of teacher roundtables that gave teachers an opportunity to
share their views with Education officials on how Education can support
them in the classroom.
Education provided technical assistance to state officials from all 50
states through site visits by the Teacher Assistance Corps (TAC). TAC
visits, which took place prior to Education's monitoring of NCLBA's
teacher qualification requirements, were intended to help states
implement the requirements, according to Education officials. The TAC
teams that conducted site visits were composed of Education officials
and experts. Education characterized these visits as "conversations
without consequences" and did not provide written feedback to states
based on the TAC visits. Education officials said that TAC teams
discussed HOUSSE procedures, the collection of data on teacher
qualifications, the best use of Title II funds, and other issues.
Officials from two of the six states that we visited said that TAC
suggestions helped them implement their HOUSSE procedures. Three other
states that we visited said that TAC teams' suggestions were not useful
in their circumstances. For example, officials in one state said that
Education's suggestion that small rural districts share teachers to
ensure that students are taught by teachers who meet NCLBA's
requirements was impractical given the distance between schools. Based
on difficulties that states identified during TAC visits, Education
offered science teachers and teachers of multiple subjects, including
rural teachers, additional flexibility in meeting NCLBA's teacher
requirements.
Through TAC visits, Education officials identified state and local
initiatives that they considered to be innovative ways of improving
teacher qualifications. Such initiatives addressed teacher
certification and licensing, professional development, and other
topics. In an effort to share information on these state and local
initiatives with policy makers or others, Education posted information
about these initiatives on www.teacherquality.us.
Education has provided guidance and hosted meetings for state officials
on the implementation of NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements.
Education's guidance answered questions about NCLBA's teacher
qualification requirements and Title II, such as when teachers with
alternative certification can be considered as having met NCLBA's
teacher requirements. Education officials reported that they update
their guidance periodically to answer new questions about the teacher
requirements, most recently in August 2005. In addition, Education
convenes state Title II directors once a year to provide updates on the
implementation of NCLBA's teacher requirements.
Education has also funded several projects that work to improve the
preparation and increase the numbers of special education teachers. For
example, one center compared special education teachers prepared in
alternative certification programs with their counterparts from
traditional preparation programs.
Some Information on Education's Web Site Was Not Readily Accessible:
According to Education officials, Education's Web site has been an
important part of their outreach efforts regarding NCLBA's teacher
qualification requirements. Several of the resources related to
implementation of the teacher qualification requirements, such as the
Teacher Toolkit and state innovative practices, are now available only
through Education's Web site. However, officials from most states and
districts that we visited who use Education's Web site to access
information on teacher programs or requirements told us that they were
unaware of some of Education's teacher resources or had difficulty
accessing those resources. For example, although all of the states we
visited accepted Education's professional development for credit toward
recertification or HOUSSE, district officials from only 3 of the 11
districts we spoke with were aware of these opportunities or that they
were available online. Moreover, officials in 4 of the states that we
visited told us that they wanted to know more about other states'
initiatives to improve teacher qualifications but were not aware that
Education had made this information available online or did not know
how to access the information. In the states that we visited, several
state and local officials mentioned that they attempted to find
information by using Education's search function but often had trouble
finding what they needed.
In our review of Education's Web site, we found that information and
resources on the teacher qualification requirements were located on
several different Web pages that sometimes were not linked, making the
information difficult to locate. For example, state initiatives were
available through the "Teachers" section of Education's Web site and
not through the "Administrators" section, even though state and local
administrators would likely find this information more useful than
teachers would. See figure 4 for the description of teacher
qualification information included on different sections of Education's
Web site.
Figure 4: Information on Teacher Qualifications Available through
Education's Web Site, as of August 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Conclusions:
Since we last reported on the status of implementing the teacher
qualification requirements in our 2003 report, state and district
officials have taken steps to implement these requirements, such as
reducing the number of uncertified teachers and developing data systems
to track teachers' qualifications. In addition, Education officials
indicated that states have taken steps to raise teacher qualifications
through changes in state certification systems.
Although states have made progress in tracking teacher qualifications
data and reporting on their status in meeting the requirements,
difficulties remain in identifying teachers who do not meet the
requirements. This may be a challenge, particularly because a number of
states did not include all teachers in their calculations or faced
other data issues. Where data challenges exist, Education and the
states may not have the information necessary to direct assistance to
where it is most needed. This may result in some teachers not receiving
appropriate support to help them meet the requirements. Education is
working on identifying data challenges and addressing them through its
monitoring visits and other technical assistance to states. Until these
data issues are resolved, state reports on their status in meeting the
teacher qualification requirements should be viewed as preliminary.
To facilitate state and district implementation efforts, Education
relies extensively on its Web site as one of its principal means for
providing information and implementation resources for states and
districts. However, state and district officials told us that they were
unaware of some of the information resources that Education made
available and had difficulty locating other known sources of
information on Education's Web site. Consequently, states and districts
may not be taking full advantage of the opportunities and flexibilities
made available by Education that would help them meet teacher
qualification goals. Further, without this information, some states and
districts may not be correctly applying the requirements, thus
jeopardizing the ability of their teachers to meet the requirements by
the deadline. This may impede efforts to increase student performance
and ensure that all students reach state standards.
Finally, even when all teachers have met NCLBA's qualification
requirements, it is unclear whether their doing so will have the
expected effect on student performance. Under the law, states have
considerable flexibility in developing requirements for teachers to
demonstrate subject matter competency. The rigor of these requirements
varied across states. Consequently, it remains to be seen how different
state requirements will affect the quality of instruction and student
performance.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make the
Web-based information on teacher qualification requirements more
accessible to users of its Web site. Specifically, the Secretary may
want to more prominently display the link to state teacher initiatives,
as well as consider enhancing the capability of the search function.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
In its letter, Education agreed with our recommendation, indicating
that the department has already taken steps to address it.
Specifically, the department is reviewing how teacher qualification
information on the "Teachers" section of its Web site can be better
integrated with related information on other Web sites, including
teacherquality.us. Education's written comments are reproduced in
appendix IV.
We are sending copies of this report 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 GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Other contacts and major contributors are
listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Activities on Which States and Districts Can Spend Title
II, Part A, Funds:
Table 3 lists our summaries of the authorized activities on which
states can spend Title II funds and shows the five categories we used
to group them. After reserving 1 percent of the total Title II
allocation to the state for administrative activities, states retain
only 2.5 percent of the remaining 99 percent for state activities.
Table 3: Title II, Part A, State Activities:
Category: Accountability;
Activity: 1. Developing systems to measure the effectiveness of
professional development programs and strategies to document
improvements in students' academic achievement.
Activity: 2. Ensuring that teachers use challenging state academic
content standards, assessments, and student achievement standards to
improve their teaching practices and their student's achievement.
Category: Certification;
Activity: 3. Reforming teacher and principal certification.
Activity: 4. Reforming tenure and implementing tests for subject matter
knowledge.
Activity: 5. Promoting license and certification reciprocity agreements
with other states for teachers and principals.
Activity: 6. Providing programs that establish, expand, or improve
alternative routes for state certification, especially for highly
qualified individuals in the areas of mathematics and science.
Category: Professional development;
Activity: 7. Conducting programs that provide support to teachers, such
as those that provide teacher mentoring and use assessments that are
consistent with student academic achievement standards.
Activity: 8. Providing professional development for teachers and
principals.
Activity: 9. Developing or assisting local educational agencies (LEAs)
in developing and using proven innovative strategies for intensive
professional development programs that are both cost-effective and
easily accessible.
Activity: 10. Encouraging and supporting the training of teachers and
administrators to integrate technology into curricula and instruction,
including training to improve their ability to use data to improve
their teaching.
Activity: 11. Providing assistance to teachers to enable them to meet
certification, licensing, or other Title II requirements needed to
become highly qualified.
Category: Recruitment and retention;
Activity: 12. Developing or assisting LEAs to develop, merit-based
performance systems and strategies that provide pay differentials and
bonus pay for teachers in academic subjects in which there is high
need.
Activity: 13. Developing projects and programs to encourage men to
become elementary teachers.
Activity: 14. Establishing and operating a statewide clearinghouse and
programs for the recruitment, placement, and retention of teachers.
Activity: 15. Assisting LEAs and schools in recruiting and retaining
highly qualified teachers, including specialists in core subjects.
Activity: 16. Developing or assisting LEAs to develop teacher
advancement initiatives that promote professional growth and emphasize
multiple career paths and pay differentiation.
Category: Technical assistance;
Activity: 17. Fulfilling the state agency's responsibility to properly
and efficiently carry out the administration of programs, including
providing technical assistance to LEAs.
Activity: 18. Assisting LEAs to develop and implement professional
development programs and school leadership academies for principals and
superintendents.
Source: NCLBA Pub.L. No. 107-110, section 2113.
[End of table]
Table 4 lists our summaries of the authorized activities on which
districts can spend Title II funds and shows the two categories we used
to group them. After reserving 1 percent of the total Title II
allocation to the state for administrative activities, states allocate
95 percent of the remaining 99 percent to the districts.
Table 4: Title II, Part A, District Activities:
Category: Professional development;
Activity: 1. Providing professional development activities for teachers
and principals that improve their knowledge of their core subjects and
effective instructional strategies.
Activity: 2. Carrying out professional development activities designed
to improve the quality of principals and superintendents.
Activity: 3. Carrying out teacher advancement initiatives to promote
professional growth and to emphasize multiple career paths and pay
differentiation.
Activity: 4. Carrying out programs and activities that are designed to
improve the quality of teachers, such as professional development
programs, merit pay programs, and testing teachers in the subjects they
teach.
Category: Recruitment and retention;
Activity: 5. Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist schools
in effectively recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers and
principals.
Activity: 6. Developing and implementing initiatives to retain highly
qualified teachers and principals, particularly in schools with a high
percentage of low-achieving students, including programs that provide
teacher mentoring and incentives.
Activity: 7. Carrying out programs and activities related to exemplary
teachers.
Activity: 8. Developing and implementing initiatives to assist schools
in recruiting and hiring teachers, including providing financial
incentives and establishing programs that train and hire special
education and other teachers, recruit qualified professionals from
other fields, and provide increased opportunities for minorities,
individuals with disabilities, and others.
Activity: 9. Hiring highly qualified teachers in order to reduce class
size, particularly in the early grades.
Source: NCLBA Pub.L. No. 107-110, section 2123.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: State-Reported Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught
by Teachers Meeting NCLBA's Teacher Qualification Requirements in the
2003-2004 School Year:
State: Alabama;
All schools: 77%;
High-poverty schools: 68%;
Low-poverty schools: 79%;
Elementary schools: 80%;
Secondary schools: 77%.
State: Alaska;
All schools: Data not provided by the state;
High-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Low-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Elementary schools: Data not provided by the state;
Secondary schools: Data not provided by the state.
State: Arizona;
All schools: 96%;
High-poverty schools: 96%;
Low-poverty schools: 96%;
Elementary schools: 98%;
Secondary schools: 94%.
State: Arkansas;
All schools: Data not provided by the state;
High-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Low-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Elementary schools: Data not provided by the state;
Secondary schools: Data not provided by the state.
State: California;
All schools: 52%;
High-poverty schools: 40%;
Low-poverty schools: 60%;
Elementary schools: 49%;
Secondary schools: 53%.
State: Colorado;
All schools: 91%;
High-poverty schools: 90%;
Low-poverty schools: 92%;
Elementary schools: 95%;
Secondary schools: 86%.
State: Connecticut;
All schools: 99%;
High-poverty schools: 98%;
Low-poverty schools: 99%;
Elementary schools: 99%;
Secondary schools: 99%.
State: Delaware;
All schools: 73%;
High-poverty schools: 68%;
Low-poverty schools: 74%;
Elementary schools: 74%;
Secondary schools: 72%.
State: District of Columbia;
All schools: Data not provided by the state;
High-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Low-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Elementary schools: Data not provided by the state;
Secondary schools: Data not provided by the state.
State: Florida;
All schools: 89%;
High-poverty schools: 87%;
Low-poverty schools: 91%;
Elementary schools: 94%;
Secondary schools: 85%.
State: Georgia;
All schools: 97%;
High-poverty schools: 97%;
Low-poverty schools: 98%;
Elementary schools: 98%;
Secondary schools: 95%.
State: Hawaii;
All schools: 73%;
High-poverty schools: 71%;
Low-poverty schools: 73%;
Elementary schools: 90%;
Secondary schools: 68%.
State: Idaho;
All schools: 97%;
High-poverty schools: 98%;
Low-poverty schools: 96%;
Elementary schools: 98%;
Secondary schools: 97%.
State: Illinois;
All schools: 98%;
High-poverty schools: 93%;
Low-poverty schools: 100%;
Elementary schools: Data not provided by the state;
Secondary schools: Data not provided by the state.
State: Indiana;
All schools: 96%;
High-poverty schools: 94%;
Low-poverty schools: 97%;
Elementary schools: 96%;
Secondary schools: 97%.
State: Iowa;
All schools: 95%;
High-poverty schools: 96%;
Low-poverty schools: 95%;
Elementary schools: 97%;
Secondary schools: 94%.
State: Kansas;
All schools: 95%;
High-poverty schools: 96%;
Low-poverty schools: 95%;
Elementary schools: 98%;
Secondary schools: 93%.
State: Kentucky;
All schools: 95%;
High-poverty schools: 98%;
Low-poverty schools: 95%;
Elementary schools: 99%;
Secondary schools: 92%.
State: Louisiana;
All schools: 90%;
High-poverty schools: 87%;
Low-poverty schools: 92%;
Elementary schools: 95%;
Secondary schools: 86%.
State: Maine;
All schools: 90%;
High-poverty schools: 91%;
Low-poverty schools: 91%;
Elementary schools: 93%;
Secondary schools: 89%.
State: Maryland;
All schools: 67%;
High-poverty schools: 47%;
Low-poverty schools: 78%;
Elementary schools: 73%;
Secondary schools: 64%.
State: Massachusetts;
All schools: 94%;
High-poverty schools: 88%;
Low-poverty schools: 96%;
Elementary schools: 95%;
Secondary schools: 92%.
State: Michigan;
All schools: 92%;
High-poverty schools: 92%;
Low-poverty schools: 93%;
Elementary schools: 97%;
Secondary schools: 89%.
State: Minnesota;
All schools: 99%;
High-poverty schools: 98%;
Low-poverty schools: 99%;
Elementary schools: 99%;
Secondary schools: 98%.
State: Mississippi[A];
All schools: 93%;
High-poverty schools: 89%;
Low-poverty schools: 95%;
Elementary schools: 97%;
Secondary schools: 91%.
State: Missouri;
All schools: 96%;
High-poverty schools: 92%;
Low-poverty schools: 97%;
Elementary schools: Data not provided by the state;
Secondary schools: Data not provided by the state.
State: Montana;
All schools: 99%;
High-poverty schools: 98%;
Low-poverty schools: 99%;
Elementary schools: 99%;
Secondary schools: 98%.
State: Nebraska;
All schools: 91%;
High-poverty schools: 90%;
Low-poverty schools: 95%;
Elementary schools: 98%;
Secondary schools: 90%.
State: Nevada;
All schools: 64%;
High-poverty schools: 59%;
Low-poverty schools: 75%;
Elementary schools: 71%;
Secondary schools: 51%.
State: New Hampshire;
All schools: 73%;
High-poverty schools: 69%;
Low-poverty schools: 73%;
Elementary schools: 76%;
Secondary schools: 70%.
State: New Jersey;
All schools: 94%;
High-poverty schools: 88%;
Low-poverty schools: 96%;
Elementary schools: 94%;
Secondary schools: 95%.
State: New Mexico;
All schools: 67%;
High-poverty schools: 63%;
Low-poverty schools: 72%;
Elementary schools: 74%;
Secondary schools: 65%.
State: New York;
All schools: 92%;
High-poverty schools: 81%;
Low-poverty schools: 97%;
Elementary schools: 92%;
Secondary schools: 94%.
State: North Carolina;
All schools: 85%;
High-poverty schools: 82%;
Low-poverty schools: 87%;
Elementary schools: 88%;
Secondary schools: 82%.
State: North Dakota;
All schools: 77%;
High-poverty schools: 83%;
Low-poverty schools: 73%;
Elementary schools: 100%;
Secondary schools: 56%.
State: Ohio;
All schools: 93%;
High-poverty schools: 91%;
Low-poverty schools: 95%;
Elementary schools: 93%;
Secondary schools: 93%.
State: Oklahoma;
All schools: 98%;
High-poverty schools: 97%;
Low-poverty schools: 98%;
Elementary schools: 98%;
Secondary schools: 98%.
State: Oregon;
All schools: 87%;
High-poverty schools: 85%;
Low-poverty schools: 89%;
Elementary schools: 97%;
Secondary schools: 85%.
State: Pennsylvania;
All schools: 97%;
High-poverty schools: 92%;
Low-poverty schools: 99%;
Elementary schools: Data not provided by the state;
Secondary schools: Data not provided by the state.
State: Puerto Rico;
All schools: Data not provided by the state;
High-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Low-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Elementary schools: Data not provided by the state;
Secondary schools: Data not provided by the state.
State: Rhode Island;
All schools: 76%;
High-poverty schools: 77%;
Low-poverty schools: 74%;
Elementary schools: 75%;
Secondary schools: 75%.
State: South Carolina;
All schools: 75%;
High-poverty schools: 68%;
Low-poverty schools: 79%;
Elementary schools: 75%;
Secondary schools: 75%.
State: South Dakota;
All schools: 93%;
High-poverty schools: 89%;
Low-poverty schools: 93%;
Elementary schools: 94%;
Secondary schools: 91%.
State: Tennessee;
All schools: 58;
High-poverty schools: 57%;
Low-poverty schools: 50%;
Elementary schools: 60%;
Secondary schools: 51%.
State: Texas;
All schools: 92%;
High-poverty schools: 92%;
Low-poverty schools: 93%;
Elementary schools: 97%;
Secondary schools: 93%.
State: Utah;
All schools: 69%;
High-poverty schools: 65%;
Low-poverty schools: 73%;
Elementary schools: 80%;
Secondary schools: 70%.
State: Vermont;
All schools: Data not provided by the state;
High-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Low-poverty schools: Data not provided by the state;
Elementary schools: Data not provided by the state;
Secondary schools: Data not provided by the state.
State: Virginia;
All schools: 95%;
High-poverty schools: 92%;
Low-poverty schools: 97%;
Elementary schools: 96%;
Secondary schools: 94%.
State: Washington;
All schools: 99%;
High-poverty schools: 99%;
Low-poverty schools: 99%;
Elementary schools: 100%;
Secondary schools: 99%.
State: West Virginia;
All schools: 96%;
High-poverty schools: 97%;
Low-poverty schools: 95%;
Elementary schools: 97%;
Secondary schools: 95%.
State: Wisconsin;
All schools: 98%;
High-poverty schools: 96%;
Low-poverty schools: 99%;
Elementary schools: 99%;
Secondary schools: 98%.
State: Wyoming;
All schools: 99%;
High-poverty schools: 99%;
Low-poverty schools: 99%;
Elementary schools: 100%;
Secondary schools: 98%.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, State Consolidated Performance
Reports.
Notes: We identified several factors that affect the accuracy of these
data and preclude a comparison of classes taught by teachers meeting
the requirements across states. However, on the basis of our work, we
determined state-reported percentages could be used to demonstrate how
close a particular state was to reaching the goal of having all its
teachers meet the requirements. All numbers have been rounded to the
nearest whole figure.
[A] These data exclude classes that have students from both elementary
and secondary grades.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Sample HOUSSE Procedures from Two States Visited:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION:
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
Ms. Marnie S. Shaul, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
OCT 26 2005:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the GAO's report on "Improved
Accessibility to Education's Information Could Help States Further
Implement Teacher Qualification Requirements." The Department of
Education strongly believes that having highly qualified teachers
available in all core academic classes is a critical strategy in
closing the achievement gap, the primary goal of the No Child Left
Behind legislation. We are pleased to see the effort that the GAO has
invested in examining the states' progress toward this goal, and in
reviewing and acknowledging the diverse ways in which the Department
has supported their efforts.
The GAO report contains the following recommendation for executive
action:
"We recommend that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make the
Web-based information on teacher qualification requirements more
accessible to users of its Web site. Specifically, the Secretary may
want to more prominently display the link to state teacher initiatives,
as well as consider enhancing the capability of the search function."
The Department concurs with the GAO's recommendation, and has already
taken steps to review how information on our ED.gov "Teachers" Web site
can be expanded and better integrated with information on www
teacherquality.us on the ESEA Title II Web site, and with Web sites
located at other organizations that maintain related information. It is
our goal that, within the next two months, we will provide a more
seamless portal to all information about highly qualified teachers.
Again, thank you for sharing your report on this timely and critical
issue.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Henry L. Johnson:
600 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW.
WASIHNGTON, DC 20202:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Marnie S. Shaul, (202)512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Natalya Barden (Analyst-in-
Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Scott Spicer, Katharine
Leavitt, and Deborah Edwards made significant contributions to this
report. Other key contributors to this report included Jessica
Botsford, Richard Burkard, Emily Leventhal, Jonathan McMurray, Jean
McSween, John Mingus, and Shannon VanCleave.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better
Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention
Strategies. GAO-05-879. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated
in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. GAO-
05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.
Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research, More
Charter School-Level Data Are Needed. GAO-05-5. Washington, D.C.: Jan.
12, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional
Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School
Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on
Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909.
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2004.
Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed
among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher
Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.
Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information
Sharing Could Be Improved. GAO-04-581. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004.
No Child Left Behind: More Information Would Help States Determine
Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified. GAO-03-631. Washington, D.C.: July
17, 2003.
Title I Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information
Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington,
D.C.: May 8, 2003.
FOOTNOTES
[1] In its October 21 letter to the states, the Department of Education
(Education) indicated that states demonstrating a good-faith effort to
meet the teacher qualification requirements will have until the end of
2006-2007 school year for all teachers to become highly qualified.
Education acknowledged the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the ability
of some states to meet the teacher qualification requirements by the
deadline, and noted in this and other correspondence that it will work
with affected states and school districts to determine whether any
flexibility will be needed with regard to implementing these
requirements. As of October 21, Education had not granted any waivers
regarding the teacher qualification requirements to affected states,
but indicated that it may consider certain waivers or additional
flexibility, depending on state's needs. Education indicated in a
September 21 letter to Louisiana that it may extend the deadline for
reporting on the state's implementation of NCLBA provisions, including
reporting on the status of teachers in meeting the requirements, if the
states determine that additional time is needed. In response to
Mississippi's request for a waiver of the teacher qualification
requirements, Education noted in a September 12 letter to the state
that it would continue to review this matter and would like more
information to assess the state's specific needs. Finally, Education
noted in a September 21 letter to Texas that it will postpone its
monitoring visit to assess the state's implementation of the teacher
qualification requirements, originally scheduled for December 2005.
[2] In its October 21 letter to the states, Education indicated that it
reserves the right to take appropriate action including the withholding
of funds if states are not in compliance with the statutory teacher
qualification requirements or are not making a good-faith effort to
ensure that all teachers meet the qualification requirements.
[3] See GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help
States Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified, GAO-03-631
(Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2003).
[4] "The Real Value of Teachers," Thinking K-16, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (The
Education Trust, Winter 2004).
[5] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, The Condition of Education 2005. (U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2005).
[6] Core subjects include English, reading or language arts,
mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government,
economics, arts, history, and geography.
[7] NCLBA requirements make an exception in the certification
requirement for charter school teachers. The law provides that teachers
in charter schools meet the certification requirements set forth in
their state's charter school law regarding certification or licensure.
A recent GAO survey found that officials in 13 of the 39 surveyed
states reported that their state law exempted charter school teachers
from certification requirements.
[8] We use the term "veteran teacher" to refer to teachers who are not
new to the teaching profession. Education's August 2005 guidance says
that states have the authority to define which teachers are new and not
new to the profession, as long as these definitions are reasonable.
According to the guidance, Education believes that teachers with less
than 1 year of experience should be considered new and therefore must
meet subject matter competency requirements using the methods allowable
for new teachers.
[9] A self-contained classroom is one in which the students stay with
their teacher all day and for all academic subjects. In these
classrooms, the special education teacher is responsible for providing
instruction in more than one core academic subject and thus would need
to demonstrate subject matter competency in each of the subjects
taught.
[10] IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the educational
needs of students with disabilities. Among other provisions, the law
mandates that a free appropriate public education be made available to
all eligible children with disabilities and requires an individualized
education program for each student.
[11] Under IDEA, states can determine the level of instruction provided
by middle and high school teachers who teach students with significant
cognitive disabilities. If the level of instruction that is being
provided is equivalent to the level of instruction at the elementary
level, the requirements for elementary teachers apply.
[12] Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
allocated more than $12 billion in fiscal year 2004 to serve
disadvantaged students in approximately 90 percent of the nation's
school districts.
[13] In October 2005, Education announced that states showing
sufficient effort in implementing the teacher qualification
requirements but still falling short of having all their teachers meet
them by the end of 2005-2006 school year, will be able to negotiate
with Education a plan for achieving that goal by the end of 2006-2007
school year.
[14] See GAO-03-631.
[15] See GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and
Research on Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts, GAO-
04-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2004).
[16] See GAO, Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better
Coordination Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet NCLBA
Teacher Requirements, GAO-04-659 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004).
[17] For 2004, the poverty threshold was $19,484 annually for a family
of four.
[18] NCLBA defined professional development in Title IX of the act.
Among other things, the definition emphasizes the type of professional
development that increases teachers' academic knowledge, gives teachers
the knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to
meet challenging state content and student achievement standards, is
sustained and intensive rather than short-term, and increases teachers'
understanding of effective instructional strategies that are based on
the principles of scientifically based research.
[19] Under Title VI of NCLBA, a district meeting its annual student
proficiency goals may transfer up to 50 percent of the funds allocated
under any of the following programs: Title II, Part A (Improving
Teacher Quality State Grants); Title II, Part D (Educational Technology
State Grants); Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities); and Part A of Title V (State Grants for Innovative
Programs). Districts not meeting their student proficiency goals for at
least 2 years are identified for improvement and cannot transfer more
than 30 percent of their funds under any given program. Districts not
meeting their goals for at least 4 years are identified for corrective
action and are prohibited from transferring funds under this option.
[20] Under Section 2141 of NCLBA, if the district falls short of its
annual measurable objectives for ensuring that teachers meet
qualification requirements for 2 consecutive years, it has to develop
an improvement plan. During the development of the improvement plan,
the state must provide technical assistance to the district and to any
schools served by the district that would enable it to meet its teacher
qualification objectives. If the district continues to fall short of
its annual measurable objectives and is also failing to meet its annual
student proficiency goals for 3 consecutive years, the state has to
enter into an agreement with the district. Under that agreement, the
state works with the district to develop professional development
strategies for teachers and principals to help the district meet its
teacher qualification objectives, and in most cases the district cannot
use Title I funds for hiring new paraprofessionals.
[21] These states include approximately 97 percent of all public school
students in the country.
[22] High-poverty and low-poverty schools are respectively those in the
top and bottom quartiles of poverty in the state; most states based
this on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch
in the school.
[23] Education has followed up with four of the five entities that did
not provide data. Officials indicated that changing definitions and
challenges with data systems were among the reasons for not providing
data. References to Education's efforts to collect and assess teacher
qualifications data from the states includes the work completed by
Education's data quality contractor.
[24] As part of that study, GAO visited California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, and Wyoming. See
GAO-03-631.
[25] Special education teachers must be included if they teach core
academic subjects.
[26] District officials in this state told us that teachers with
emergency certification and a plan to meet the requirements counted as
meeting the requirements.
[27] These states did not overlap with our site visit states.
Education's findings are discussed in a subsequent section of this
report.
[28] Education's contractor plans to issue a report on its findings
regarding state teacher qualifications data in fall 2005.
[29] Colorado allowed teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency
through accumulation of 24 college or professional development credits.
Up to one-fourth of these credit hours could be accumulated through
travel relevant to the subject area taught, such as travel to Greece
for a history teacher. Officials there indicated that to count travel
toward demonstration of subject matter competency, a teacher would need
to explain what was learned as the result of this travel and how this
knowledge would contribute to student performance, as well as
demonstrate how the travel enhanced his or her content knowledge. The
responsibility for ensuring the relevance of travel is with the
districts, and state officials did not know how often this option was
actually used.
[30] The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards offers
National Board Certification in subject areas such as English language
arts and mathematics, requiring teachers to create a portfolio
demonstrating their work in the subject area and exercises to
demonstrate their subject matter knowledge. For more information,
please see http://www.nbpts.org/.
[31] Officials in California explained that their teacher preparation
program included subject-specific coursework, and they expected that
their veteran teachers would count points for college coursework and
experience before counting points for other activities on the state's
HOUSSE.
[32] Education had not yet monitored these states at the time of our
site visits.
[33] Officials in California noted that the recency requirement applies
to professional development activities accepted under the state's
HOUSSE. Specifically, teachers can earn points only for those
professional development activities that had been completed after the
adoption of the state's professional development standards in 1997.
[34] Such data are available for teachers through the Tennessee Value-
Added Assessment System.
[35] According to the Department of Education, states have the
flexibility to determine whether middle school teachers--such as sixth
grade teachers in some districts--will have to meet the requirements
for elementary or secondary teachers, depending on the degree of rigor
and technicality of the subject matter that the teacher will need to
know in relation to the state's content standards and academic
achievement standards for the subjects that will be taught.
[36] The new certificate will allow teachers with significant subject
matter competency coursework to teach for up to 2 years as long as they
demonstrate progress toward meeting the subject matter requirements.
After meeting the subject matter requirements, they can move into one
of the state's alternative certification programs to obtain a teaching
certificate. Under NCLBA, teachers in alternative certification
programs are considered to have met the requirements as long as they
receive high-quality professional development and intensive
supervision, assume the functions of a teacher for no more than 3
years, and demonstrate satisfactory progress toward obtaining state
certification.
[37] Education monitors state and district efforts on this requirement
through its Title I monitoring. NCLBA does not make any provisions for
penalties for districts failing to make this notification.
[38] See GAO-03-631.
[39] Our survey of a nationally representative sample of school
districts during 2002-2003 school year showed that classroom reduction
expenditures accounted for 56 percent of total Title II funds districts
spent. See GAO-03-631.
[40] Education's survey of a nationally representative sample of school
districts showed that they spent 58 percent of Title II funds on
teachers' salaries to reduce class size during 2002-2003 school year.
See "Improving Teacher Quality in U.S. School Districts; Districts' Use
of Title II, Part A, Funds in 2002-2003," Policy and Program Brief,
U.S. Department of Education, February 6, 2004.
[41] Two of the 11 districts reported using additional criteria in
making Title II funding decisions.
[42] NCLBA requires states to develop annual measurable objectives for
adequate yearly progress that schools and districts must meet to ensure
that every student becomes proficient in math and reading/language arts
by school year 2013-2014.
[43] We visited one district that did not have high-poverty schools but
was chosen because of its rural location.
[44] After awarding to each district the amount of Title II funds
equivalent to what the district received in fiscal year 2001 under the
Eisenhower Professional Development and Class-Size Reduction programs,
the state allocates any excess funds to the districts based on the
following formula: 20 percent of the excess funds must be distributed
based on the district's relative number of individuals ages 5 through
17 residing in the area served by the district; 80 percent of the
excess funds must be distributed based on the relative number of
individuals ages 5 through 17 residing in the area served by the
district who are also from families with incomes below the poverty
line.
[45] See GAO-03-631.
[46] Hamilton County Schools is an urban school district in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, with 79 schools, 2,674 full-time teachers, and
student enrollment of 40,494 in the 2004-2005 school year.
[47] Denver Public Schools is an urban school district in Denver,
Colorado, with 154 schools, 4,061 teachers, and student enrollment of
72,901 in the 2004-2005 school year.
[48] In November 2005, Denver voters approved a property tax increase
that will be used to finance the differential compensation system.
Beginning on January 1, 2006, all new teachers will be automatically
enrolled in the new system; current teachers will be able to opt into
the system over the first 7 years or remain in the current system.
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:
