Teacher Quality
Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts Gao ID: GAO-07-861T May 17, 2007Teachers are the single largest resource in our nation's elementary and secondary education system. However, according to recent research, many teachers lack competency in the subjects they teach. In addition, research shows that most teacher training programs leave new teachers feeling unprepared for the classroom. While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments and institutions of higher education, the federal investment in enhancing teacher quality is substantial and growing. In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom and in 2001 the Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), which established federal requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified. This testimony focuses on (1) approaches used in teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA, (2) the allowable activities under these acts and how recipients are using the funds, and (3) how Education supports and evaluates these activities. This testimony is based on prior GAO reports. We updated information where appropriate.
While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA is to improve teacher quality, some of their specific approaches differ. For example, a major focus of HEA provisions is on the training of prospective teachers while NCLBA provisions focus more on improving teacher quality in the classroom and hiring highly qualified teachers. Both laws use reporting mechanisms to increase accountability; however, HEA focuses more on institutions of higher education while NCLBA focuses on schools and districts. In addition, HEA and NCLBA grants are funded differently, with HEA funds distributed through one-time competitive grants, while Title II under NCLBA provides funds annually to all states through a formula. Both acts provide states, districts, or grantees with the flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve teacher quality, including many activities that are similar, such as professional development and recruitment. A difference is that NCLBA's Title II specifies that teachers can be hired to reduce class-size while HEA does not specifically mention class-size reduction. Districts chose to spend about one-half of their NCLBA Title II funds on class-size reduction in 2004-2005. On the other hand, professional development and recruitment efforts were the two broad areas where recipients used funds for similar activities, although the specific activities varied somewhat. Many HEA grantees we visited used their funds to fill teacher shortages in urban schools or recruit teachers from nontraditional sources, such as mid-career professionals. Districts we visited used NCLBA funds to provide bonuses, advertise open teaching positions, and attend recruitment events, among other activities. Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. GAO's previous work identified areas where Education could improve its assistance on teacher quality efforts and more effectively measure the results of these activities. Education has made progress in addressing GAO's concerns by disseminating more information to recipients, particularly on teacher quality requirements, and improving how the department measures the results of teacher quality activities by establishing definitions and performance targets under HEA. While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it is not clear the extent to which they complement each other. States, districts, schools, and grantees under both laws engage in similar activities. However, not much is known about how well, if at all, these two laws are aligned. Thus, there may be opportunities to better understand how the two laws are working together at the federal, state, and local level.
GAO-07-861T, Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-861T
entitled 'Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation
of Key Federal Efforts' which was released on May 17, 2007.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 17, 2007:
Teacher Quality:
Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts:
Statement of George A. Scott, Director Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues:
GAO-07-861T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-861T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Teachers are the single largest resource in our nation‘s elementary and
secondary education system. However, according to recent research, many
teachers lack competency in the subjects they teach. In addition,
research shows that most teacher training programs leave new teachers
feeling unprepared for the classroom.
While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the
responsibility of state and local governments and institutions of
higher education, the federal investment in enhancing teacher quality
is substantial and growing. In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher
Education Act (HEA) to enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom
and in 2001 the Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA),
which established federal requirements that all teachers of core
academic subjects be highly qualified.
This testimony focuses on
(1) approaches used in teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA,
(2) the allowable activities under these acts and how recipients are
using the funds, and (3) how Education supports and evaluates these
activities.
This testimony is based on prior GAO reports. We updated information
where appropriate.
What GAO Found:
While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA is to improve
teacher quality, some of their specific approaches differ. For example,
a major focus of HEA provisions is on the training of prospective
teachers while NCLBA provisions focus more on improving teacher quality
in the classroom and hiring highly qualified teachers. Both laws use
reporting mechanisms to increase accountability; however, HEA focuses
more on institutions of higher education while NCLBA focuses on schools
and districts. In addition, HEA and NCLBA grants are funded
differently, with HEA funds distributed through one-time competitive
grants, while Title II under NCLBA provides funds annually to all
states through a formula.
Both acts provide states, districts, or grantees with the flexibility
to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve teacher
quality, including many activities that are similar, such as
professional development and recruitment. A difference is that NCLBA‘s
Title II specifies that teachers can be hired to reduce class-size
while HEA does not specifically mention class-size reduction. Districts
chose to spend about one-half of their NCLBA Title II funds on class-
size reduction in 2004-2005. On the other hand, professional
development and recruitment efforts were the two broad areas where
recipients used funds for similar activities, although the specific
activities varied somewhat. Many HEA grantees we visited used their
funds to fill teacher shortages in urban schools or recruit teachers
from nontraditional sources, such as mid-career professionals.
Districts we visited used NCLBA funds to provide bonuses, advertise
open teaching positions, and attend recruitment events, among other
activities.
Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and
guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding
recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. GAO‘s
previous work identified areas where Education could improve its
assistance on teacher quality efforts and more effectively measure the
results of these activities. Education has made progress in addressing
GAO‘s concerns by disseminating more information to recipients,
particularly on teacher quality requirements, and improving how the
department measures the results of teacher quality activities by
establishing definitions and performance targets under HEA.
While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it is
not clear the extent to which they complement each other. States,
districts, schools, and grantees under both laws engage in similar
activities. However, not much is known about how well, if at all, these
two laws are aligned. Thus, there may be opportunities to better
understand how the two laws are working together at the federal, state,
and local level.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-861T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact George Scott, (202) 512-
5932, scottg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the federal
government's efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers are the
single largest resource in our nation's elementary and secondary
education system. Approximately 3 million teachers are responsible for
educating over 48 million students and they account for over one half
of public school expenditures ($215 billion) each year. Research has
shown that teachers play a significant role in improving student
performance. However, research has also shown that many teachers--
especially those in high-poverty districts--lack competency in the
subjects they teach and that most teacher training programs leave new
teachers feeling unprepared for the classroom.
While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the
responsibility of state and local governments and institutions of
higher education, the federal investment in enhancing teacher quality
is substantial and growing. In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher
Education Act (HEA) to enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom
by improving training programs for prospective teachers and the
qualifications of current teachers. In 2001, the Congress passed the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA)--the most recent reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act--which established federal
requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly
qualified. In 2006, about $3 billion of federal funds were appropriated
for NCLBA Title II and HEA Title II to address teacher quality. Given
that NCLBA and HEA are both slated for reauthorization in 2007, this
hearing presents a timely opportunity to explore teacher quality
provisions covered under those laws.
This statement focuses on the approaches, implementation, and
evaluation of teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA. I will
first provide information on the goals, approaches, and funding of
these programs. Then I will discuss the allowable activities and how
recipients are using the funds. Finally, I will summarize our findings
related to Education's support and evaluation of these activities.
My remarks today are drawn from previous GAO reports covering HEA
teacher quality programs and Title II under NCLBA,[Footnote 1]
supplemented with updated information. We updated information by
interviewing state officials, officials from institutions of higher
education, and Education officials. We also reviewed recent studies and
Education documents. We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
In summary:
* While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA is to
improve teacher quality, some of the specific approaches differ. For
example, HEA focuses more on training prospective teachers than NCLBA.
In addition, HEA and NCLBA are funded differently, with HEA funds
distributed through competitive grants, while Title II under NCLBA
provides funds annually to all states through a formula.
* Both acts provide states, districts, and grantees with the
flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve
teacher quality, including many activities that are similar, such as
professional development and recruitment. A difference is that NCLBA's
Title II specifies that teachers can be hired to reduce class size,
while HEA does not specifically mention class-size reduction. With the
broad range of activities allowed, we found both similarities and
differences in the activities undertaken.
* Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and
guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding
recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. Our
previous work identified areas in which Education could improve its
assistance to states on their teacher quality efforts and more
effectively measure the results of these activities. Education has made
progress in addressing our concerns by disseminating more information
to recipients particularly on teacher quality requirements and
activities and improving how the department measures the results of
teacher quality activities by, for example, establishing performance
targets.
Teacher Quality Provisions under HEA and NCLBA Have Somewhat Different
Approaches and Are Funded Differently:
While the overall goal of Title II under both HEA and NCLBA is to
improve student achievement by improving the teacher workforce, some of
the specific approaches differ. For example, a major focus of HEA
provisions is on the training of prospective teachers (preservice
training) while NCLBA provisions focus more on improving teacher
quality in the classroom (in service training) and hiring highly
qualified teachers. Also, both laws use reporting mechanisms to
increase accountability. However, HEA focuses more on institutions of
higher education while NCLBA focuses on schools and school districts.
Additionally, HEA focuses on expanding the teacher workforce by
supporting recruitment from other professions.
In addition, HEA and NCLBA Title II funds are distributed differently.
HEA teacher quality funds are disbursed through three distinct types of
grants: state, partnership, and recruitment grants. State grants are
available for states to implement activities to improve teacher quality
in their states by enhancing teacher training efforts, while
partnership grants support the collaborative efforts of teacher
training programs and other eligible partners.[Footnote 2] Recruitment
grants are available to states or partnerships for teacher recruitment
activities.
All three types of grants require a match from non-federal sources. For
example, states receiving state grants must provide a matching amount
in cash or in-kind support from non-federal sources equal to 50 percent
of the amount of the federal grant.[Footnote 3] All three grants are
one-time competitive grants; however, state and recruitment grants are
for 3 years while partnership grants are for 5 years.[Footnote 4] HEA
amendments in 1998 required that 45 percent of funds be distributed to
state grants, 45 percent to partnership grants, and 10 percent to
recruitment grants. As of April 2007, 52 of the 59 eligible entities
(states, the District of Columbia, and 8 territories) had received
state grants.[Footnote 5] Because the authorizing legislation
specifically required that entities could only receive a state grant
once, only seven would be eligible to receive future state grants. In
our 2002 report, we suggested that if Congress decides to continue
funding teacher quality grants in the upcoming reauthorization of HEA,
it might want to clarify whether all 59 entities would be eligible for
state grant funding under the reauthorization, or whether eligibility
would be limited to only those states that have not previously received
a state grant. We also suggested that if Congress decides to limit
eligibility to entities that have not previously received a state
grant, it may want to consider changing the 45 percent funding
allocation for state grants. In a 2005 appropriation act, Congress
waived the allocation requirement. In 2006, about 9 percent of funds
were awarded for state grants, 59 percent for partnership grants, and
33 percent for recruitment. When Congress reauthorizes HEA, it may want
to further clarify eligibility and allocation requirements for this
program.
NCLBA, funded at a much higher level than HEA, provides funds to states
through annual formula grants. In 2006, Congress appropriated $2.89
billion through NCLBA and $59.9 million for HEA for teacher quality
efforts.[Footnote 6] While federal funding for teacher initiatives was
provided through two other programs prior to NCLBA, the act increased
the level of funding to help states and districts implement the teacher
qualification requirements. States and districts generally receive
NCLBA Title II funds based on the amount they received in 2001, the
percentage of children residing in the state or district, and the
number of those children in low-income families. After reserving up to
1 percent of the funds for administrative purposes, states pass 95
percent of the remaining funds to the districts and retain the rest to
support state-level teacher initiatives and to support NCLBA
partnerships between higher education institutions and high-need
districts that work to provide professional development to teachers.
While there is no formula in NCLBA for how districts are 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, schools with the largest class
sizes, or schools that have not met academic performance requirements
for 2 or more consecutive years. 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. NCLBA also
allows districts to transfer these funds to most other major NCLBA
programs, such as those under Title I, to meet their educational
priorities. [Footnote 7]
Some HEA and NCLBA Funds Were Used for Similar Activities As Allowed
under Both Acts:
HEA provides grantees and NCLBA provides states and districts with the
flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve
teacher quality, including many activities that are similar under both
acts. HEA funds can be used, among other activities, to reform teacher
certification requirements, professional development activities, and
recruitment efforts. In addition, HEA partnership grantees must use
their funds to implement reforms to hold teacher preparation programs
accountable for the quality of teachers leaving the program. Similarly,
acceptable uses of NCLBA funds include teacher certification
activities, professional development in a variety of core academic
subjects, recruitment, and retention initiatives. In addition,
activities carried out under NCLBA partnership grants are required to
coordinate with any activities funded by HEA. Table 1 compares
activities under HEA and NCLBA.
Table 1: Examples of Activities under HEA Title II and NCLBA Title II:
HEA: Reforming teacher certification or licensure requirements;
NCLBA: Reforming teacher and principal certification or licensing
requirements.
HEA: Recruitment and retention;
NCLBA: Recruitment and retention.
HEA: Professional development;
NCLBA: Professional development.
HEA: Implement reforms within teacher preparation programs to hold the
programs accountable for preparing highly competent teachers;
NCLBA: Reforming tenure systems, implementing teacher testing for
subject matter knowledge, and implementing teacher testing for State
certification or licensing, consistent with Title II of HEA.
HEA: Providing preservice clinical experience and mentoring;
NCLBA: Hiring teachers to reduce class size.
HEA: Disseminating information on effective practices;
NCLBA: Developing systems to measure the effectiveness of specific
professional development programs.
HEA: Teacher education scholarships;
NCLBA: Funding projects to promote reciprocity of teacher and principal
certification or licensing between or among States.
HEA: Follow-up services for new teachers;
NCLBA: Support to teachers or principals.
Source: GAO summary of HEA Title II and NCLBA Title II.
[End of table]
With the broad range of activities allowed under HEA and NCLBA, we
found both similarities and differences in the activities undertaken.
For example, districts chose to spend about one-half of their NCLBA
Title II funds ($1.2 billion) in 2004-2005 on class-size reduction
efforts, which is not an activity specified by HEA.[Footnote 8] We
found that some districts focused their class-size reduction efforts on
specific grades, depending on their needs. One district we visited
focused its NCLBA-funded class-size reduction efforts on the eighth
grade because the state already provided funding for reducing class
size in other grades. However, while class-size reduction may
contribute to teacher retention, it also increases the number of
classrooms that need to be staffed and we found that some districts had
shifted funds away from class-size reduction to initiatives to improve
teachers' subject matter knowledge and instructional skills. Similarly,
Education's data showed that the percent of NCLBA district funds spent
on class-size reduction had decreased since 2002-2003, when 57 percent
of funds were used for this purpose.
HEA and NCLBA both funded professional development and recruitment
efforts, although the specific activities varied somewhat. For example,
mentoring was the most common professional development activity among
the HEA grantees we visited. Of the 33 HEA grant sites we visited, 23
were providing mentoring activities for teachers. In addition, some
grantees used their funds to establish a mentor training program to
ensure that mentors had consistent guidance. One state used the grant
to develop mentoring standards and to build the capacity of trainers to
train teacher mentors within each district. Some districts used NCLBA
Title II funds for mentoring activities as well. We also found that
states and districts used NCLBA Title II funds to support other types
of professional development activities. For example, two districts we
visited spent their funds on math coaches who perform tasks such as
working with teachers to develop lessons that reflected state academic
standards and assisting them in using students' test data to identify
and address students' academic needs. Additionally, states used a
portion of NCLBA Title II funds they retained to support professional
development for teachers in core academic subjects. In two states that
we visited, officials reported that state initiatives specifically
targeted teachers who had not met the subject matter competency
requirements of NCLBA. These initiatives either offered teachers
professional development in core academic subjects or reimbursed them
for taking college courses in the subjects taught.
Both HEA and NCLBA funds supported efforts to recruit teachers. Many
HEA grantees we interviewed used their funds to fill teacher shortages
in urban schools or to recruit new teachers from nontraditional
sources--mid-career professionals, community college students, and
middle-and high-school students. For example, one university recruited
teacher candidates with undergraduate degrees to teach in a local
school district with a critical need for teachers while they earn their
masters in education. The program offered tuition assistance, and in
some cases, the district paid a full teacher salary, with the
stipulation that teachers continue teaching in the local school
district for 3 years after completing the program. HEA initiatives also
included efforts to recruit mid-career professionals by offering an
accelerated teacher training program for prospective teachers already
in the workforce. Some grantees also used their funds to recruit
teacher candidates at community colleges. For example, one of the
largest teacher training institutions in one state has partnered with
six community colleges around the state to offer training that was not
previously available. Finally, other grantees targeted middle and high
school students. For example, one district used its grant to recruit
interns from 14 high-school career academies that focused on training
their students for careers as teachers. Districts we visited used NCLBA
Title II funds to provide bonuses to attract successful administrators,
advertise open teaching positions, and attend recruitment events to
identify qualified candidates. In addition, one district also used
funds to expand alternative certification programs, which allowed
qualified candidates to teach while they worked to meet requirements
for certification.
Finally, some states used HEA funds to reform certification
requirements for teachers. Reforming certification or licensing
requirements was included as an allowable activity under both HEA and
NCLBA to ensure that teachers have the necessary teaching skills and
academic content knowledge in the subject areas. HEA grantees also
reported using their funds to allow teacher training programs and
colleges to collaborate with local school districts to reform the
requirements for teacher candidates. For example, one grantee partnered
with institutions of higher education and a partner school district to
expose teacher candidates to urban schools by providing teacher
preparation courses in public schools.
Education Is Working to Provide Better Assistance and Improve Its
Evaluation and Oversight Efforts:
Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and
guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding
recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. In 1998,
Education created a new office to administer HEA grants and provide
assistance to grantees. While grantees told us that the technical
assistance the office provided on application procedures was helpful,
our previous work noted several areas in which Education could improve
its assistance to HEA grantees, in part through better guidance. For
example, we recommended that in order to effectively manage the grant
program, Education further develop and maintain its system for
regularly communicating program information, such as information on
successful and unsuccessful practices. We noted that without knowledge
of successful ways of enhancing the quality of teaching in the
classroom, grantees might be wasting valuable resources by duplicating
unsuccessful efforts. Since 2002, Education has made changes to improve
communication with grantees and potential applicants. For example, the
department presented workshops to potential applicants and updated and
expanded its program Web site with information about program
activities, grant abstracts, and other teacher quality resources. In
addition, Education provided examples of projects undertaken to improve
teacher quality and how some of these efforts indicate improved teacher
quality in its 2005 annual report on teacher quality.[Footnote 9]
Education also has provided assistance to states, districts and schools
using NCLBA Title II funds. The department offers professional
development workshops and related materials that teachers can access
online through Education's website. In addition, Education assisted
states and districts by providing updated guidance. In our 2005 report,
officials from most states and districts 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. We recommended that Education
explore ways to make the Web-based information on teacher qualification
requirements more accessible to users of its Web site. Education
immediately took steps in response to the recommendation and
reorganized information on its website related to the teacher
qualification requirements.
In addition to providing assistance and guidance, Education is
responsible for evaluating the efforts of HEA and NCLBA recipients and
for overseeing program implementation. Under HEA, Education is required
to annually report on the quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications of current teachers. In 2002, we found that the
information collected for this requirement did not allow Education to
accurately report on the quality of HEA's teacher training programs and
the qualifications of current teachers in each state. In order to
improve the data that states are collecting from institutions that
receive HEA teacher quality grants, and all those that enroll students
who receive federal student financial assistance and train teachers, we
recommended that Education should more clearly define key data terms so
that states provide uniform information. Further, in 2004, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) completed a Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) assessment[Footnote 10] of this program and gave it a
rating of "results not demonstrated," due to a lack of performance
information and program management deficiencies. Education officials
told us that they had aligned HEA's data collection system with NCLBA
definitions of terms such as "highly qualified teacher." However, based
on the PART assessment, the Administration proposed eliminating funding
for HEA teacher quality grants in its proposed budgets for fiscal years
2006-2008, and redirecting the funds to other programs. Congress has
continued to fund this program in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
Education has responded to our recommendations and issues raised in the
PART assessment related to evaluating grantee activities and providing
more guidance to grantees on the types of information needed to
determine effectiveness. When the Congress amended HEA in 1998 to
provide grants to states and partnerships, it required that Education
evaluate the activities funded by the grants. In 2005, Education
established performance measures for two of the teacher quality
enhancement programs--state grants and partnership grants--and required
grantees to provide these data in their annual performance plans
submitted to Education. The performance measure for state grants is the
percentage of prospective teachers who pass subject matter tests, while
the measure for partnership grants is the percentage of participants
who complete the program and meet the definition of being "highly
qualified." In addition, in 2006, Education included information in
letters to grantees on the types of information that it requires to
assess the effectiveness of its teacher quality programs. For example,
in its letters to state grantees, Education noted that when reporting
on quantitative performance measures, grantees must show how their
actual performance compared to the targets (e.g., benchmarks or goals)
that were established in the approved grant application for each budget
period.
In addition, in May 2006, Education issued its final report on HEA's
partnership grants, focusing on the 25 grantees of the 1999
cohort.[Footnote 11] The goal of the study was to learn about the
collaborative activities taking place in partnerships. It was designed
to examine approaches for preparing new and veteran teachers and to
assess the sustainability of project activities after the grant ends.
Among its findings, Education reported that partnerships encouraged and
supported collaboration between institutions of higher education and
schools to address teacher preparation needs.
Under NCLBA, Education holds districts and schools accountable for
improvements in student academic achievement, and holds states
accountable for reporting on the qualifications of teachers. NCLBA set
the end of the 2005-2006 school year as the deadline for teachers of
core academic subjects, such as math and science, to be highly
qualified.[Footnote 12] Teachers meeting these requirements 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.[Footnote 13] Education collects state data
on the percent of classes taught by highly qualified teachers and
conducts site visits in part to determine whether states appropriately
implemented highly qualified teacher provisions.[Footnote 14]
In state reviews conducted as part of its oversight of NCLBA, Education
identified several areas of concern related to states' implementation
of teacher qualification requirements and provided states
feedback.[Footnote 15] For example, some states did not include the
percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who are not
highly qualified in their annual state report cards,[Footnote 16] as
required. In addition, because some states inappropriately defined
teachers as highly qualified, the data that these states reported to
Education were inaccurate according to a department official. In many
states, the requirements for teachers were not sufficient to
demonstrate subject matter competency. Since subject matter competency
is a key part of the definition of a highly qualified teacher, such
states' data on the extent to which teachers have met these
requirements could be misleading. Education also found that a number of
states were incorrectly defining districts as high-need, in order to
make more districts eligible for partnerships with higher education
institutions. According to Education, each of these states corrected
their data and the department will continue to monitor states to ensure
they are using the appropriate data.
In addition to Education's oversight efforts, OMB completed a PART
assessment of NCLBA Title II in 2005 and rated the program as
"moderately effective." While OMB noted that the program is well-
managed, it also noted that the program has not demonstrated cost-
effectiveness and that an independent evaluation has not been completed
to assess program effectiveness. In response to OMB's assessment,
Education took steps to more efficiently monitor states and conducted
two program studies related to teacher quality. An Education official
told us that the program studies had been conducted but the department
has not yet released the findings.
Concluding Observations:
In conclusion, the nation's public school teachers play a key role in
educating 48 million students, the majority of our future workforce.
Recognizing the importance of teachers in improving student
performance, the federal government, through HEA and NCLBA, has
committed significant resources and put in place a series of reforms
aimed at improving the quality of teachers in the nation's classrooms.
With both acts up for reauthorization, an opportunity exists for the
Congress to explore potential interrelationships in the goals and
initiatives under each act.
While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it is
not clear the extent to which they complement each other. Our separate
studies of teacher quality programs under each of the laws have found
common areas for improvement, such as data quality and assistance from
Education. We have also found that states, districts, schools, and
grantees under both laws engage in similar activities. However, not
much is known about how well, if at all, these two laws are aligned.
Thus, there may be opportunities to better understand how the two laws
are working together at the federal, state, and local level. For
example, exploring links between efforts aimed at improving teacher
preparation at institutions of higher education and efforts to improve
teacher quality at the school or district level could identify
approaches to teacher preparation that help schools the most.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I welcome any
questions you or other Members of this Subcommittee may have at this
time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
202-512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Harriet Ganson, Bryon Gordon, Elizabeth Morrison, Cara Jackson,
Rachel Valliere, Christopher Morehouse, and Jessica Botsford.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher
Training but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced, GAO-03-6
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2002) and GAO, No Child Left Behind Act:
Improved Accessibility to Education's Information Could Help States
Further Implement Teacher Qualification Requirements, GAO-06-25
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2005).
[2] Eligible partnerships must include at least three partners,
consisting of teacher training programs, colleges of Arts and Sciences,
and eligible local school districts. Partnerships may include other
groups such as state educational agencies, businesses, and nonprofit
educational organizations.
[3] Partnerships must match from non-federal sources 25 percent of the
partnership grant in the first year, 35 percent in the second, and 50
percent in each succeeding year. States and partnerships that receive
recruitment grants have the same matching requirements for these grants
as they have under their separate grant programs.
[4] According to Education, an institution of higher education can have
more than one grant (simultaneously or sequentially) as long as the
members of the partnership are not identical (i.e. a new partnership is
formed).
[5] Since 1999, 63 partnership grants have been made to various
entities, and 68 recruitment grants were made.
[6] The funding authorizations for Title II, along with the rest of
HEA, were extended through June 30, 2007, under the Third Higher
Education Extension Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109-292).
[7] 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. For example, districts may
transfer a portion of their Title II funds into Title I for initiatives
designed to improve student achievement.
[8] Education surveyed approximately 800 districts and found that they
spent $1.2 billion, about half of their NCLBA Title II funds in 2004-
2005, to hire more teachers in order to reduce class size. According to
an Education official, no comparable HEA expenditure data is available.
[9] The Secretary's Fourth Annual Report on Teacher Quality, U.S.
Department of Education (Washington, D.C.) August 2005.
[10] OMB uses the PART as a diagnostic tool meant to provide a
consistent approach to evaluating federal programs as part of the
executive budget formulation process and as a central component of its
overall governmentwide management efforts.
[11] Grantees are required to submit data on how well they meet their
project performance measures that they negotiate with their Education
grant managers.
[12] Although 2005-2006 was the original deadline, on October 15, 2005
Education sent a policy letter to the Chief State School Officers
saying that states that do not quite reach the 100 percent goal by the
end of the 2005-2006 school year will not lose federal funds if they
are implementing the law.
[13] Veteran teachers may demonstrate subject matter competency through
a state-developed High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation,
whereby subject matter competency is established through teaching
experience, professional development, coursework, and other activities.
[14] In 2003, Education aligned HEA's definition of highly qualified
teacher" to that in NCLBA.
[15] As of April 2006, Education officials had completed reviews of all
states.
[16] States must prepare and disseminate an annual report card that
includes information on student achievement and the professional
qualifications of teachers in the state, the percentage of teachers
teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage
of classes in the state not taught by highly qualified teachers. These
data are presented in the aggregate and are also disaggregated by high-
poverty compared to low-poverty schools.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
