Teacher Preparation
Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide Coordination Could Enhance This Assistance Gao ID: GAO-09-573 July 20, 2009In 2005-2006, students with disabilities comprised 9 percent of the student population in the United States, and English language learners comprised about 10 percent. Many of these students spend a majority of their time in the general classroom setting in elementary and secondary schools. Most teachers are initially trained through teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education. GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent to which teacher preparation programs require preparation for general classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups; (2) the role selected states play in preparing general classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups; and (3) funding and other assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Education (Education) to help general classroom teachers instruct these student subgroups. To address these issues, GAO conducted a nationally representative survey of teacher preparation programs and interviewed officials from state and local educational agencies in four states and Education.
According to GAO's survey results, most traditional teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education nationwide required at least some training for prospective general classroom teachers on instructing students with disabilities and English language learners. While the majority of programs required at least one course entirely focused on students with disabilities, no more than 20 percent of programs required at least one course entirely focused on English language learners. Additionally, more than half the programs required field experiences with students with disabilities, while less than a third did so for English language learners. Despite recent steps by the majority of programs to better prepare teachers for instructing both of these student subgroups, many programs faced challenges in providing this training. The four states GAO visited--California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas--set varying requirements for teacher preparation programs. However, all of the states and school districts visited provided assistance to general classroom teachers to help them instruct these student subgroups. Nevertheless, these states and school districts cited challenges providing this training, such as time constraints and identifying appropriate instructional strategies. Six Education offices provide funding and other assistance that can help general classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and English language learners, but no departmentwide mechanism exists to coordinate among the offices. Ten grant programs allow grantees to use funds to help general classroom teachers instruct these students; Education offices also support research and technical assistance providers that serve policymakers and educators. However, Education lacks a mechanism to facilitate information sharing among the offices on a regular basis that could assist offices that have less experience with these subgroups to better understand student needs or integrate research findings into ongoing programming.
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-09-573, Teacher Preparation: Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide Coordination Could Enhance This Assistance
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-573
entitled 'Teacher Preparation: Multiple Federal Education Offices
Support Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities
and English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide
Coordination Could Enhance This Assistance' which was released on
August 19, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong
Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House
of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2009:
Teacher Preparation:
Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher Preparation for
Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners,
but Systematic Departmentwide Coordination Could Enhance This
Assistance:
GAO-09-573:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-573, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2005-2006, students with disabilities comprised 9 percent of the
student population in the United States, and English language learners
comprised about 10 percent. Many of these students spend a majority of
their time in the general classroom setting in elementary and secondary
schools. Most teachers are initially trained through teacher
preparation programs at institutions of higher education. GAO was asked
to examine (1) the extent to which teacher preparation programs require
preparation for general classroom teachers to instruct these student
subgroups; (2) the role selected states play in preparing general
classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups; and (3) funding
and other assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Education
(Education) to help general classroom teachers instruct these student
subgroups. To address these issues, GAO conducted a nationally
representative survey of teacher preparation programs and interviewed
officials from state and local educational agencies in four states and
Education.
What GAO Found:
According to GAO‘s survey results, most traditional teacher preparation
programs at institutions of higher education nationwide required at
least some training for prospective general classroom teachers on
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners.
While the majority of programs required at least one course entirely
focused on students with disabilities, no more than 20 percent of
programs required at least one course entirely focused on English
language learners. Additionally, more than half the programs required
field experiences with students with disabilities, while less than a
third did so for English language learners. Despite recent steps by the
majority of programs to better prepare teachers for instructing both of
these student subgroups, many programs faced challenges in providing
this training.
The four states GAO visited”California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas”
set varying requirements for teacher preparation programs. However, all
of the states and school districts visited provided assistance to
general classroom teachers to help them instruct these student
subgroups. Nevertheless, these states and school districts cited
challenges providing this training, such as time constraints and
identifying appropriate instructional strategies.
Six Education offices provide funding and other assistance that can
help general classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and
English language learners, but no departmentwide mechanism exists to
coordinate among the offices. Ten grant programs allow grantees to use
funds to help general classroom teachers instruct these students;
Education offices also support research and technical assistance
providers that serve policymakers and educators. However, Education
lacks a mechanism to facilitate information sharing among the offices
on a regular basis that could assist offices that have less experience
with these subgroups to better understand student needs or integrate
research findings into ongoing programming.
Figure: Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Research and Technical
Assistance Providers:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
U.S. Department of Education:
IES: Institute of Education Sciences;
* Regional research and technical assistance providers;
* National research and technical assistance providers (3).
OII: Office of Innovation and Improvement;
* Grant programs.
OPEPD: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development;
* National research and technical assistance providers.
OSERS: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services;
* Grant programs;
* Regional research and technical assistance providers;
* National research and technical assistance providers.
OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education;
* Grant programs;
* Regional research and technical assistance providers (2);
* National research and technical assistance providers.
OELA: Office of English Language Acquisition;
* Grant programs;
* National research and technical assistance providers.
Sources: GAO analysis of Education documents and interviews with
officials, Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education develop and implement a
mechanism to ensure more systematic coordination among program offices
that oversee assistance that can help general classroom teachers to
instruct these student subgroups. Education agreed that coordination is
beneficial and will explore the benefits of creating such a mechanism.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-573] or key
components. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-
7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Most Traditional Teacher Preparation Programs Required at Least Some
Training on Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners and Cited Challenges Preparing Teachers for Both Subgroups:
The States We Visited Set Varying Requirements for the Preparation of
Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners, though All Offered Ongoing Training to Teachers and
Experienced Challenges Meeting Training Needs:
Multiple Education Offices Provide Assistance to Help Teachers Instruct
Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, but No
Systematic Coordination Exists among These Offices:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Survey of Teacher Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher
Education:
Site Visits to Selected States and School Districts:
Analysis of Education's Survey Data:
Review of Education-Funded Grant Programs, Research, and Technical
Assistance:
Appendix II: Education-Funded Regional Research and Technical
Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed:
Appendix III: Education-Funded National Research and Technical
Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Education Offices That Oversee Funding or Assistance That Can
Support Prospective and Practicing Teachers in Instructing Students
with Disabilities and English Language Learners:
Table 2: Ten Federal Programs Provide Funding That Can Be Used to
Prepare General Classroom Teachers to Work with Students with
Disabilities and English Language Learners:
Table 3: Funding Required or Allowed to Prepare or Train Prospective or
Practicing Teachers:
Table 4: Characteristics of Teacher Preparation Programs at
Institutions of Higher Education That Responded to GAO's Survey:
Table 5: School Districts GAO Visited in Four Selected States:
Table 6: Selected Regional-Level Research and Technical Assistance
Providers:
Table 7: Selected National-Level Research and Technical Assistance
Providers:
Figures:
Figure 1: Percentage Change in Population Ages 5 to 17 Years That
Speaks English "Less Than Very Well," from 1990 to 2000:
Figure 2: Career Path for Teachers:
Figure 3: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Reported
Requiring Courses, with Varying Levels of Content, on Students with
Disabilities and English Language Learners:
Figure 4: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required at
Least One Course Entirely Focused on Students with Disabilities and
English Language Learners:
Figure 5: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs on
Instructing Students with Disabilities:
Figure 6: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs on
Instructing English Language Learners:
Figure 7: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required
Field Experiences with Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners:
Figure 8: Types of Field Experiences Required by Traditional Teacher
Preparation Programs for Prospective Teachers on Instructing Students
with Disabilities and English Language Learners:
Figure 9: Program Improvements Recently Completed by Teacher
Preparation Programs to Better Prepare Prospective Teachers for
Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners:
Figure 10: Reasons Reported by Teacher Preparation Programs That
Prompted Program Improvements to Better Prepare Prospective Teachers
for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners:
Figure 11: Challenges Faced by Teacher Preparation Programs in
Preparing Prospective Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities
and English Language Learners:
Figure 12: Types of Information or Assistance Reported by Teacher
Preparation Programs That Could Greatly Benefit Their Efforts to
Prepare Teachers to Work with Students with Disabilities and English
Language Learners:
Figure 13: Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Regional and
National Research and Technical Assistance Providers That Can Support
Teacher Preparation to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English
Language Learners:
Abbreviations:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act:
ESL: English as a second language:
HEA: Higher Education Act:
HEOA: Higher Education Opportunity Act:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
IEP: individualized education program:
IES: Institute of Education Sciences:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
NLS-NCLB: National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind:
OELA: Office of English Language Acquisition:
OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education:
OII: Office of Innovation and Improvement:
OPE: Office of Postsecondary Education:
OSERS: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services:
OPEPD: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development:
SSI-NCLB: State Survey on the Implementation of No Child Left Behind:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 20, 2009:
The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Today's general classroom teachers face increasing student diversity in
their classrooms, including growing numbers of students with
disabilities and English language learners.[Footnote 1] Out of the 49
million students enrolled in U.S. public schools in school year 2005-
2006, students identified with disabilities and eligible for special
education services under federal legislation comprised 9 percent of
public school enrollment, and English language learners comprised
approximately 10 percent of the student population. Enrollment for both
of these student subgroups has been increasing in past years, and many
of these students spend a majority of their time in the general
classroom setting. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA), amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLBA), holds states, school districts, and individual schools
accountable for the achievement of all students, including students in
these two subgroups. However, schools have reported difficulty making
adequate yearly progress for students with disabilities and English
language learners.[Footnote 2] At the same time, a 2008 study funded by
the U.S. Department of Education (Education) found that less than half
of the general classroom teachers surveyed nationwide who received
preparation to instruct students with special needs and ethnically
diverse students said the training they received prepared them well for
the diversity they encountered in the classroom.[Footnote 3]
Most prospective teachers are trained through teacher preparation
programs at institutions of higher education, and each state prescribes
standards for these programs within its own state. In addition, state
and local governments have traditionally had the primary responsibility
for overseeing teacher quality, but the federal government has been
redefining its role in this area. At the federal level, Education
provides financial assistance to states, institutions of higher
education, and school districts to support teacher quality, including
teacher preparation and ongoing training for practicing teachers. The
ESEA, Higher Education Act (HEA),[Footnote 4] and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are the key federal laws that
authorize funding to support general classroom teachers to instruct
these two student subgroups through various formula and competitive
grant programs overseen by Education. Education also funds a number of
national and regional research and technical assistance providers that
can provide support to teachers who instruct these two student
subgroups.
As agreed with your office, we examined (1) the extent to which teacher
preparation programs require preparation for general classroom teachers
to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners
and the challenges these programs face; (2) the role selected states
play in preparing general classroom teachers to instruct students with
disabilities and English language learners and their challenges; and
(3) the funding and other assistance provided by Education to states
and teacher preparation programs to help prepare general classroom
teachers to instruct these student subgroups.
We used several methodologies to answer these questions. To determine
the extent to which teacher preparation programs at institutions of
higher education require that general classroom teachers receive
preparation to work with students with disabilities and English
language learners, we conducted a nationally representative survey of
374 programs randomly selected from the 50 states and the District of
Columbia to create estimates about the population of all teacher
preparation programs. We had a response rate of 81 percent, and all
estimates from our survey have a margin of error of plus or minus 6
percentage points, unless otherwise noted, at the 95 percent confidence
level. To understand the role of selected states in preparing both
prospective and practicing teachers to work with these student
subgroups, we interviewed officials at state agencies and local school
districts, as well as teachers, in four states--California, Georgia,
Nebraska, and Texas. We selected states that met a range of conditions,
primarily focusing on states either with a high percentage of the
population ages 5 to 21 who speak English "less than very well" or
experiencing population growth in this student subgroup, as well as
geographic diversity. We also took into consideration states with
higher-than-average percentages of students with disabilities served
under IDEA, Part B, who spent more than 80 percent of their day in a
general education classroom.[Footnote 5] To review Education's funding
and other assistance, we compiled a list, verified by Education
officials, of major relevant federal grant programs from the 2008 Guide
to U.S. Department of Education Programs. For each program, we reviewed
what was known about how much of the funding was used in the 2007-2008
school year to prepare general classroom teachers, statutory
requirements, and performance goals. We also interviewed officials from
Education-supported national research and technical assistance
providers with a major focus on students with disabilities, English
language learners, or teacher preparation. Finally, we selected
regional providers of research and technical assistance for interviews
that served our four selected states. A more detailed explanation of
our methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2008 to July 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Educating Students with Disabilities:
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the
percentage of children and youth with disabilities who receive special
education services under IDEA in public schools increased over 5
percent from 1976 to 2007.[Footnote 6] In fall 2007, 6 million students
with disabilities received services under IDEA,[Footnote 7] and
comprised about 9 percent of the student population,[Footnote 8]
according to the Data Accountability Center.[Footnote 9] States have
relatively similar proportions of students with disabilities served
under IDEA, which can include students with learning disabilities,
speech or language impairments, emotional disturbance, and autism,
among other disabilities. IDEA was most recently reauthorized in 2004,
and is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs of
students with disabilities.[Footnote 10] This law mandates a free
appropriate public education for all eligible children with
disabilities, an individualized education program (IEP) for each
student, and placement of these students in the least restrictive
environment, among other provisions.[Footnote 11] Under the least
restrictive environment requirement, state and local educational
agencies must ensure that children with disabilities are educated with
children who are nondisabled to the maximum extent appropriate.
As a result of these provisions, many students with disabilities served
under IDEA spend part of their day in a general education classroom.
According to Education data for fall 2007, nearly 57 percent of
students with disabilities served under IDEA from the ages of 6 through
21 spent more than 80 percent of their school day in the general
classroom setting.[Footnote 12] Specific instructional models vary by
states and school districts for students with disabilities. For
example, in a full-inclusion model, or "pull-in" model, a student
spends the majority of time in a general education classroom, and
services are brought to the student, either by a special education co-
teacher or a consultant. In a partial-inclusion model, or "pull-out"
model, a student will spend part of the day in a resource classroom
where the student receives more intensive or individualized instruction
provided by a special education teacher. Increasingly, states and
school districts are implementing a new model for the general education
classroom, called Response to Intervention, aimed to help teachers
determine and provide for the appropriate education interventions so
that children can progress in their learning. Through this model,
general classroom teachers, as part of a multidisciplinary team effort,
can help to identify struggling students and monitor their progress,
provide and adjust evidence-based academic interventions depending on a
student's responsiveness, and identify students with learning
disabilities.
Educating English Language Learners:
A 2008 Education report found that while the overall school population
grew by less than 3 percent from 1996 to 2006, the English language
learner student population increased more than 60 percent and is among
the fastest growing demographic groups of students in the country.
[Footnote 13] The number and percentage of English language learners
vary widely among states. For example, based on state-reported data to
Education, five states--California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and
Texas--were home to nearly 60 percent of students identified as English
language learners in grades kindergarten to 12 in the 2005-2006 school
year.[Footnote 14] However, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from
1990 to 2000, the fastest growing English language learner student
populations were concentrated in other states in the Southeast,
Midwest, and mountain areas of the West (see figure 1). In addition,
English language learners include foreign-born and native-born
students, with several recent reports estimating that native-born
students make up at least half of these students in the United States.
English language learners have diverse cultural backgrounds and speak
more than 400 languages, with almost 80 percent of these students
speaking Spanish, according to Education. These students also include
refugees with little formal schooling and students who are literate in
their native languages, resulting in a range of educational needs.
Figure 1: Percentage Change in Population Ages 5 to 17 Years That
Speaks English "Less Than Very Well," from 1990 to 2000:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of the U.S.]
Percentage Change in Population Ages 5 to 17 Years That Speaks English
"Less Than Very Well," from 1990 to 2000:
-11.5% to 0%:
Iowa;
Louisiana;
Maine;
West Virginia.
1 to 75%:
Alabama;
Alaska;
California;
Connecticut;
Delaware;
District of Columbia;
Florida;
Hawaii;
Illinois;
Indiana;
Kentucky;
Maryland;
Massachusetts;
Michigan;
Mississippi;
Missouri;
Montana;
New Hampshire;
New Jersey;
New Mexico;
New York;
North Dakota;
Ohio;
Pennsylvania;
Rhode Island;
Texas;
Wyoming.
76% to 150%:
Arizona;
Idaho;
Oklahoma;
South Carolina;
Tennessee;
South Carolina;
South Dakota;
Utah;
Vermont;
Virginia;
Washington;
Wisconsin.
151% to 284%:
Arkansas;
Colorado;
Georgia;
Kansas;
Minnesota;
Nebraska;
Nevada;
North Carolina;
Oregon.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from the 1990 Census and 2000 Census,
U.S. Census Bureau.
[End of figure]
Generally, individual school districts determine the type of
instruction program that will best serve their English language
learners, and, according to Education, all states have outlined
statewide standards for English language proficiency for English
language learner students. Some of these instruction programs develop
literacy in two languages, such as two-way immersion, or dual language
programs, which aim to develop strong skills and proficiency in both
the student's native language and English. Other programs aim to
develop literacy in English only, such as structured English immersion
programs, for which all instruction is in English and adjusted to the
proficiency level of students, so that subject matter is
understandable.
Career Path for Teachers:
Preparation for general classroom teachers involves formal training for
initial certification, often referred to as preservice training, as
well as ongoing training throughout a teacher's professional career,
often referred to as in-service training or professional development.
Multiple pathways exist for teachers to obtain their initial
certification to teach. Most teachers receive undergraduate degrees
through teacher preparation programs administered by institutions of
higher education. These traditional programs typically include courses
in subject matter and instructional strategies, as well as field-based
experiences. Under this traditional approach, prospective teachers must
complete all of their certification requirements before beginning to
teach. In contrast, alternative routes to certification, designed for
prospective teachers who already have an undergraduate degree or
perhaps an existing career in a different field, tend to focus mainly
on instructional approaches, since these prospective teachers generally
have subject matter expertise. Prospective teachers in alternative
routes to certification typically begin teaching while continuing to
take coursework needed to meet certification or licensure requirements.
According to state-reported data submitted to Education, nearly 20
percent of the teachers prepared in 2003-2004 earned their teaching
certificate through an alternative route to certification.[Footnote 15]
About half of alternative programs are administered by institutions of
higher education. The remainder are offered through school districts,
statewide regional educational service centers,[Footnote 16] state
departments of education, and other entities.
Training for practicing teachers already in the classroom continues
beyond completion of a teacher preparation program with training
offered by states; school districts; and other entities, including
institutions of higher education. Some states and school districts may
offer induction or mentoring programs for new teachers, which could
include assistance from a more experienced teacher, additional
training, or classroom observation. Teachers can also earn supplemental
certificates, such as an English as a second language (ESL)
endorsement, and school districts may encourage or require teachers to
receive additional training to earn these certifications. See figure 2
for an illustration of the various steps in the career path for
teachers.
Figure 2: Career Path for Teachers:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
(1) Preparation of prospective teachers (preservice):
* Recruiting prospective teachers into the field;
* Traditional or alternative programs:
– Training in pedagogy;
– Acquisition of subject matter knowledge;
– Field experiences, including student teaching;
Service providers: Institutions of higher education and/or alternative
route programs.
(2) Certification and continuing training for new practicing teachers:
* Initial license or professional license;
* Mentoring or induction program during first years of teaching;
Service providers: States, districts, and institutions of higher
education.
(3) Ongoing professional training for practicing teachers (in-service):
* Professional development courses;
* Advanced certification;
* License renewal;
Service providers: States, districts, institutions of higher education,
and other providers.
Source: GAO analysis, Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
State and Federal Support for Teacher Preparation:
State educational agencies, local school districts, and the federal
government support the preparation and ongoing training of general
classroom teachers. Each state sets its own standards for teacher
preparation programs and requirements for teacher certification. As a
result of state-specific standards for teacher preparation programs and
teacher certification, teachers prepared in one state may not meet the
qualifications in another state. Nationwide, most teachers become
certified to teach within the same state where they completed their
preparation, but some states have higher percentages of teachers
trained outside of the state. According to state-reported data
submitted to Education, in 2003-2004, seven states reported that more
than 40 percent of their newly certified teachers received their
initial preparation outside the state they were working in.[Footnote
17] Some states prescribe ongoing professional development standards
that teachers must meet in order to maintain their certification and
are also responsible for monitoring and assisting their school
districts.
In line with Education's strategic goal outlined in its fiscal year
2009 Performance Plan to improve student achievement with a focus on
bringing all students to grade level by 2014, as required by ESEA, and
to ensure that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers,
Education provides financial support and other assistance to state and
local educational agencies that can be used to help general classroom
teachers instruct these two student subgroups. Financial support is
provided through a number of formula and competitive grants.[Footnote
18] These grant programs provide billions of dollars to state
educational agencies, school districts, and institutions of higher
education, as well as other entities, and are administered by different
Education offices. Other federal assistance includes research and
technical assistance directly from Education offices or indirectly via
about 100 regional and national technical assistance providers
supported by the agency. Six offices within Education oversee funding,
research, and technical assistance that provide support to varying
degrees related to preparing general classroom teachers to instruct
students with disabilities and English language learners (see table 1).
Table 1: Education Offices That Oversee Funding or Assistance That Can
Support Prospective and Practicing Teachers in Instructing Students
with Disabilities and English Language Learners:
Education office: Institute of Education Sciences (IES);
Purpose: Provides rigorous research on which to ground education
practice and policy.
Education office: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE);
Purpose: Promotes academic excellence, enhances educational
opportunities and equity for all of America's children and families,
and improves the quality of teaching and learning by providing
leadership, technical assistance, and financial support.
Education office: Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA);
Purpose: Provides national leadership to help ensure that English
language learners and immigrant students attain English proficiency and
achieve academically and assists in building the nation's capacity in
critical foreign languages.
Education office: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
(OPEPD);
Purpose: Oversees planning, evaluation, policy development, and budget
activities within Education.
Education office: Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII);
Purpose: Makes strategic investments in innovative educational
practices through two dozen discretionary grant programs and
coordinates the public school choice and supplemental educational
services provisions of ESEA, as amended by NCLBA.
Education office: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS);
Purpose: Works to improve results and outcomes for people with
disabilities of all ages; in supporting ESEA, as amended by NCLBA,
OSERS provides a wide array of supports to parents and individuals,
school districts, and states in three main areas: special education,
vocational rehabilitation, and research.
Source: GAO analysis of Education documentation.
[End of table]
ESEA, IDEA, and HEA are the three major laws that influence the
preparation of teachers to work with students with disabilities and
English language learners in general education classrooms.
* ESEA, which was amended and reauthorized in 2001 by NCLBA, is
designed to improve the education of all students and holds school
districts accountable for student achievement. ESEA provides that
students with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency
are among four specific student subgroups for which achievement must be
monitored.[Footnote 19] States must set annual goals that lead to all
students achieving proficiency in reading, mathematics, and science by
2014. To meet adequate yearly progress for a given year, each district
and school must show that the requisite percentage of each designated
student group, as well as the student population as a whole, met the
state proficiency goals on an annual assessment.[Footnote 20] In
addition, states must annually assess the English language proficiency
of all students with limited English proficiency. ESEA authorizes
funding to improve outcomes through preparing teachers to instruct
students with disabilities and English language learners, most notably
through Titles I, II, and III. Title I, Part A of ESEA provides
financial assistance to local educational agencies and schools with
high numbers or high percentages of economically disadvantaged
children. Title II, Part A aims to improve teacher and principal
quality. Title III of ESEA focuses on assisting school districts in
achieving student progress in English proficiency. In addition, ESEA
defines highly qualified teachers as those that have (1) a bachelor's
degree, (2) full state certification or licensure, and (3) demonstrate
proficiency in the subjects they teach. However, while there are
specific requirements for special education teachers, ESEA does not
identify specific requirements for general classroom teachers to prove
their skills in teaching students with disabilities or English language
learners.
* IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs
of students with disabilities.[Footnote 21] IDEA provides formula grant
funding to states and school districts under Part B for students with
disabilities from the ages of 3 through 21 years. IDEA also provides
competitive grant funds to states, institutions of higher education,
and other entities under Part D to support personnel development and
technical assistance and information dissemination efforts.
* HEA authorizes competitive grants to enhance the quality of teacher
training programs and the qualification of practicing teachers, as well
as accountability requirements for teacher preparation programs and
states.[Footnote 22] Although Congress has held states and teacher
preparation programs accountable for the federal funds they received
under HEA, the reauthorization of that act by the Higher Education
Opportunity Act (HEOA) amended HEA to require annual reporting on the
preparation of general classroom teachers to instruct students with
disabilities and English language learners.[Footnote 23]
In addition, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 is intended to
strengthen the principal education research, statistics, and evaluation
activities of Education.[Footnote 24] This act established the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act),
signed into law on February 17, 2009, provides Education with an
additional $97 billion.[Footnote 25] Of this amount, more than $21
billion will provide funding for three existing grant programs
authorized by ESEA, HEA, and IDEA that either require or allow funds to
be used to prepare general classroom teachers to instruct students with
disabilities and English language learners. The $97 billion for
Education also includes $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund. Local educational agencies that receive Fiscal
Stabilization funds may use them for fiscal years 2009 to 2011 for any
activity authorized by ESEA and IDEA, which would include supporting
programs designed to address the educational needs of students with
disabilities and English language learners as an eligible use of funds.
In an April 2009 report on our initial review of state usage of funds
available through this act, we noted that only three states have had
their proposals describing how they would use the funds designated for
educational purposes approved by Education.[Footnote 26]
Most Traditional Teacher Preparation Programs Required at Least Some
Training on Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners and Cited Challenges Preparing Teachers for Both Subgroups:
According to our survey, which we administered during fall 2008, most
traditional teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher
education nationwide required at least one course for prospective
general classroom teachers that included content on instructing
students with disabilities and English language learners, although the
level of emphasis on these student subgroups in required coursework
varied greatly.[Footnote 27] In addition, fewer programs required field
experiences with these students, especially English language learners.
The majority of programs recently took steps to improve prospective
teachers' training on instructing these subgroups but cited ongoing
challenges to provide this training. Overall, about half of these
programs felt that they could benefit from additional assistance.
While Most Programs Required Courses That Include Content on These
Subgroups, Course Emphasis Varied, As Well As Requirements for Field
Experiences:
On the basis of responses from the random sample of teacher preparation
programs at the institutions of higher education we surveyed, we
estimate that most traditional teacher preparation programs nationwide
require courses, with varying levels of emphasis, on students with
disabilities and English language learners. As shown in figure 3, about
95 percent of these programs required courses that include at least
some content on instructing students with disabilities, and about 73
percent of programs required courses that include at least some content
on English language learners. The major reason cited by programs for
not requiring courses with content on English language learners or
field experiences with this student subgroup was that their state
standards did not require this of teacher preparation programs. For
example, state standards for teacher preparation programs vary in their
requirements regarding course content and field experiences and can
include limitations on the maximum number of program or credit hours.
In addition, states vary in whether they have the same or different
standards for traditional and alternative routes to certification
programs. We estimate that about half of the institutions of higher
education offered alternative routes to certification. Of those
institutions of higher education that offer both traditional and
alternative programs, the percentage of alternative routes with
required courses that include content on these student subgroups was
similar to traditional teacher preparation programs.
Figure 3: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Reported
Requiring Courses, with Varying Levels of Content, on Students with
Disabilities and English Language Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image; multiple vertical bar graph]
Programs: Elementary Programs;
Students with disabilities: 95%;
English language learners: 72%.
Programs: Secondary Programs;
Students with disabilities: 94%;
English language learners: 73%.
Programs: Alternative routes[A];
Students with disabilities: 89%.
English language learners: 60%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
Notes: Data on elementary and secondary programs refer to traditional
teacher preparation programs. Data on alternative routes to
certification include programs that prepare both elementary and
secondary general classroom teachers.
[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
While the majority (67 to 73 percent) of traditional teacher
preparation programs had at least one course entirely focused on
students with disabilities, no more than 20 percent of programs
required at least one course entirely focused on English language
learners (see figure 4). English language learners were more often a
partial focus of required courses for prospective elementary and
secondary teachers. For example, programs were more likely to
incorporate content on instructing these students as part of required
courses entirely focused on diverse learners, including but not limited
to English language learner students. However, fewer alternative routes
to certification (51 percent) than traditional programs reported
requiring courses entirely focused on students with disabilities, while
the percentage of alternative routes that required courses entirely
focused on English language learners was similar to traditional
programs. In general, there is a lack of consensus regarding what makes
a teacher effective. However, several experts we spoke with suggested
an integrated or infused approach to incorporating content on these
student subgroups into multiple courses for prospective teachers as a
preferred method for preparing teachers. In addition, several experts
emphasized the importance of collaboration among faculty members with
regard to preparing prospective teachers to instruct these students.
Figure 4: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required at
Least One Course Entirely Focused on Students with Disabilities and
English Language Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image; multiple vertical bar graph]
Programs: Elementary Programs;
Students with disabilities: 73%;
English language learners: 20%.
Programs: Secondary Programs;
Students with disabilities: 67%;
English language learners: 16%.
Programs: Alternative routes[A];
Students with disabilities: 51%.
English language learners: 17%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
Notes: Data on elementary and secondary programs refer to traditional
teacher preparation programs. Data on alternative routes to
certification include programs that prepare both elementary and
secondary general classroom teachers.
[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
Most traditional teacher preparation programs reported that their
required courses on students with disabilities included information on
major categories of disabilities; relevant state and federal laws; and
instructional strategies to meet the diverse needs of these students,
such as differentiated instruction, determining and utilizing
accommodations for instruction and assessment, and Response to
Intervention (see figure 5).
Figure 5: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs on
Instructing Students with Disabilities:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Topic for required courses: Major categories of disabilities;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 90%.
Topic for required courses: Relevant state and federal laws;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 89%.
Topic for required courses: Differentiated instruction[A];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 88%.
Topic for required courses: Determining and utilizing
accommodations[B];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 86%.
Topic for required courses: Data-driven instruction[C];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 86%.
Topic for required courses: Positive behavioral interventions and
supports[D];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 85%.
Topic for required courses: Collaborating and participating in IEP
development and implementation;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 81%.
Topic for required courses: Response to intervention;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 80%.
Topic for required courses: Appropriate use of technology and assistive
technology;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 75%.
Topic for required courses: Universal design for learning[E];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
students with disabilities: 73%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
[A] Differentiated instruction refers to the use of flexible teaching
approaches to benefit the individual learning needs of all students.
[B] Accommodations are services or support related to a student's
disability that allows him or her to fully access and demonstrate
knowledge in a particular subject matter.
[C] Data-driven instruction refers to the use of student data to inform
instruction that specifically targets student needs.
[D] Positive behavioral interventions and supports refers to an
operational framework that guides selection, integration, and
implementation of the best scientifically-based academic and behavioral
practices for improving academic and behavior outcomes for all
students.
[E] Universal design for learning refers to a framework for designing
educational environments that helps all students gain knowledge,
skills, and enthusiasm for learning.
[End of figure]
Programs that required specific courses on English language learners
most often reported including topics related to communication with
students and families and connecting lessons and instruction in ways
that demonstrate cultural sensitivity, as shown in figure 6. Of the
various topics we asked about in our survey related to instructing
English language learners, the least likely topic to be included as
part of the required courses for both elementary and secondary teachers
was English language acquisition or development. However, experts we
spoke to in the field of teacher preparation for English language
learners emphasized the need for general classroom teachers to have
knowledge of language acquisition.
Figure 6: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs on
Instructing English Language Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Survey percentage
Topic for required courses: Communication with students demonstrating
sensitivity to cultural/language differences;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
English language learners: 84%.
Topic for required courses: Communication with families demonstrating
sensitivity to cultural/language differences;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
English language learners: 80%.
Topic for required courses: Connecting instruction to experiences, home
languages, and culture;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
English language learners: 79%.
Topic for required courses: Accommodating instruction appropriately for
English language learners;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
English language learners: 73%.
Topic for required courses: Relevant state and federal laws pertaining
to English language learners;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
English language learners: 66%.
Topic for required courses: Strategies for effective collaboration with
ESL teachers;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
English language learners: 60%.
Topic for required courses: English language acquisition or development
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on
English language learners: 56%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
[End of figure]
Teacher preparation programs nationally varied in whether or not they
required field experiences for prospective teachers with these student
subgroups, but overall, a larger percentage of these programs required
field experiences for prospective teachers with students with
disabilities than with English language learners (see figure 7).
Examples of field experiences can include observing teachers,
participating in the development of individualized education programs
for students with disabilities, and tutoring English language learners.
The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, a
professional accrediting entity for institutions that prepare teachers,
has identified field experience as one of six key components that
should be incorporated into these programs.[Footnote 28]
Figure 7: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required
Field Experiences with Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image; multiple vertical bar graph]
Programs: Elementary Programs;
Students with disabilities: 58%;
English language learners: 28%.
Programs: Secondary Programs;
Students with disabilities: 51%;
English language learners: 22%.
Programs: Alternative routes[A];
Students with disabilities: 28%.
English language learners: 12%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
Notes: For traditional elementary and secondary programs, field
experiences typically occur before a prospective teacher becomes
certified to teach. To obtain similar information on field experiences
for alternative routes to certification, which can generally accelerate
the time it takes for a prospective teacher to become the teacher of
record in a classroom, we obtained information on field experiences for
these programs that occurred prior to prospective teachers assuming
their position as the teacher of record.
[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
Teacher preparation programs can offer a variety of field experiences
for prospective teachers, although our survey results indicate that
requirements for specific types of field experiences with students with
disabilities and English language learners are not widespread. The type
of field experiences most often required for prospective elementary and
secondary teachers for both student subgroups was to observe existing
teachers working with these students in their classrooms (see figure
8). However, this was required in less than half of the programs.
Assisting teachers or other school professionals and student teaching
were also among the most frequently reported field experiences required
with these students. While a student teaching placement is a typical
component of a teacher preparation program, based on our survey
results, less than one-third of these programs required that
prospective teachers work with either of these student subgroups during
their student teaching experience. However, more programs reported
expecting that prospective teachers would gain experience working with
students with disabilities and English language learners as part of
their student teaching experience, than reported having formal
requirements in place.
Figure 8: Types of Field Experiences Required by Traditional Teacher
Preparation Programs for Prospective Teachers on Instructing Students
with Disabilities and English Language Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph]
Field experience with students with disabilities: Observe teachers with
students with disabilities in schools:
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 45%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 36%.
Field experience with students with disabilities: Student teaching;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 30%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 23%.
Field experience with students with disabilities: Assist teachers or
other school professionals;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 29%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 23%.
Field experience with students with disabilities: Tutor students with
disabilities;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 17%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 10%.
Field experience with students with disabilities: Participate in IEP
meetings;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 11%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 7%.
Field experience with students with disabilities: Interact with
families of students with disabilities;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 7%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 5%.
Field experience with students with disabilities: Participate in
students with disabilities, education-related community events with
students with disabilities;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 8%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 5%.
Field experience with English language learners: Observe teachers with
English language learners in schools;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 22%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 15%.
Field experience with English language learners: Student teaching;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 17%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 12%.
Field experience with English language learners: Assist teachers or
other school professionals;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 12%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 9%.
Field experience with English language learners: Tutor English language
learners students;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 7%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 5%.
Field experience with English language learners: Interact with families
of English language learners;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 7%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 4%.
Field experience with English language learners: Participate in English
language learner, education-related community events;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
elementary teachers: 2%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective
secondary teachers: 1%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
[End of figure]
Most Programs Reported Taking Steps to Better Prepare Teachers for
Instructing These Subgroups, Yet Cited Challenges in Providing This
Preparation:
Based on our survey results, an estimated 70 percent of teacher
preparation programs have taken steps in the last 3 years or were
planning to take steps in the next 2 years to better prepare
prospective elementary and secondary teachers to instruct students with
disabilities, and 58 percent reported having taken or planning to take
steps for English language learners. Hiring professional education
faculty with experience working with these students and adapting
existing required courses (see figure 9) were the two most likely types
of program improvements recently taken by these programs for both
student subgroups.
Figure 9: Program Improvements Recently Completed by Teacher
Preparation Programs to Better Prepare Prospective Teachers for
Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph]
Types of program improvements: Hired professional education faculty
with experience working with these students;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 59%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 52%;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 42%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 37%.
Types of program improvements: Adapted existing required courses;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 45%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 43%;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 40%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 35%.
Types of program improvements: Increased collaboration with faculty
that have expertise working with these students;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 44%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 41%;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 29%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 25%.
Types of program improvements: Adopted new requirements for field
experiences with these students;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 29%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 27%;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 28%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 23%.
Types of program improvements: Adopted new required courses;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 26%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 25%;
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 20%;
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 15%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7
percentage points or less at the 95 percent confidence level for the
responses pertaining to improvement for English language learners for
elementary and secondary programs.
[B] The statistic for secondary programs--improvements for English
language--learners has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage
points or less at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
In general, programs reported similar reasons for making improvements
to better prepare teachers for instructing both student subgroups, as
shown in figure 10. Teacher preparation programs most frequently cited
input from faculty members as a top reason for making improvements to
better equip teachers who instruct both student subgroups. Regarding
English language learners, most programs cited changes in student
demographics as a top reason for prompting these actions. In addition,
over 50 percent of programs viewed the following as major or moderate
reasons for making improvements: (1) new research or information on
best practices, (2) feedback from local school districts, and (3)
follow-up with program completers indicated a need in this area.
Figure 10: Reasons Reported by Teacher Preparation Programs That
Prompted Program Improvements to Better Prepare Prospective Teachers
for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph]
Reasons for improvements: Input from program faculty[A];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with
disabilities: 81%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language
learners: 76%.
Reasons for improvements: Changes in student demographics[B];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with
disabilities: 0;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language
learners: 73%.
Reasons for improvements: Follow-up with program completers;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with
disabilities: 68%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language
learners: 60%.
Reasons for improvements: New research or information on best
practices;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with
disabilities: 70%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language
learners: 63%.
Reasons for improvements: Feedback from local school districts[A];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with
disabilities: 69%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language
learners: 67%.
Reasons for improvements: Influence of national accreditation entities;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with
disabilities: 49%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language
learners: 46%.
Reasons for improvements: New state standards for teacher preparation
or licensure;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with
disabilities: 45%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language
learners: 46%.
Reasons for improvements: Influence of national advocacy or membership
organizations;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with
disabilities: 30%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language
learners: 30%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7
percentage points or less at the 95 percent confidence level for
questions pertaining to the English language learner subgroup.
[B] We only asked about the extent to which changes in student
demographics prompted program improvements with regard to the English
language learner subgroup, given the recent growth of this population.
In addition, this statistic has a margin of error of plus or minus 7
percentage points or less at the 95 percent confidence level.
[C] Percentages are based on the number of teacher preparation programs
that listed these as major or moderate reasons for making improvements.
[End of figure]
Despite a number of recent improvements teacher preparation programs
reported making, most institutions cited ongoing challenges in
providing this training to prepare prospective teachers for instructing
both student subgroups. On the basis of our survey results, the
challenge most frequently cited by institutions was not having enough
program or credit hours due to state standards (see figure 11).
Specifically, teacher preparation programs may struggle to find time in
their programs to include additional preparation related to instructing
these subgroups, given state standards that can include limitations on
the maximum number of program or credit hours allowed or specific
topics that must be addressed in required courses. Other top challenges
reported by institutions included difficulty arranging field
experiences, including student teaching for prospective teachers, and
limited faculty with experience working with these two subgroups. Based
on these responses, it appears that the improvements most frequently
being taken by these institutions are to address their top challenges.
For example, programs frequently reported hiring faculty members with
experience working with these student subgroups as a way to better
prepare teachers, which would help to address one of the top challenges
reported by these programs. In addition, institutions are adapting
existing courses to incorporate content on instructing these students,
possibly to help their programs better prepare teachers without
exceeding the maximum number of program or credit hours required by
state standards. Finally, we found that the challenges reported by
teacher preparation programs were not associated with program size,
indicating that even large programs with potentially greater access to
resources face similar challenges preparing prospective teachers for
these student subgroups.
Figure 11: Challenges Faced by Teacher Preparation Programs in
Preparing Prospective Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities
and English Language Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph]
Types of challenges: Not enough program hours due to state standards;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
60%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
59%.
Types of challenges: Finding appropriate field experiences, including
student teaching;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
54%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
51%.
Types of challenges: Finding faculty with experience working with these
students;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
41%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
52%.
Types of challenges: Ensuring appropriate balance between theory and
practice;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
40%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
32%.
Types of challenges: Addressing diverse needs among students with
disabilities;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
35%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
33%.
Types of challenges: Awareness of research-based practices;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
14%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
14%.
Types of challenges: Lack of collaboration with special education or
ESL faculty;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
6%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
10%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
[End of figure]
While some institutions reported receiving support from state agencies
and Education, approximately half of the teacher preparation programs
indicated they could benefit from additional information or assistance.
According to our survey results, during the 2007-2008 academic year, an
estimated 64 percent of institutions received assistance from state
agencies in preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities,
and 53 percent received assistance in preparing teachers to work with
English language learners. Examples of assistance from state agencies
included providing information on research-based practices or
sponsoring a statewide conference. An estimated 40 percent of these
institutions received assistance from Education in preparing teachers
to work with these student subgroups. Examples cited by these
institutions of assistance provided to them by Education include grant
funding, Web sites, conferences, and other published materials from
Education. As shown in figure 12, an estimated 50 percent of
institutions would greatly benefit from information or assistance,
specifically in the areas of reforming curricula and identifying
research-based instructional strategies for both student subgroups, as
well as strengthening faculty knowledge of and experience specifically
with English language learners. Finally, when asked about how the
federal government could assist them in preparing teachers to work with
these student subgroups, 142 of the 303 institutions that completed our
survey responded to this open-ended question, and about half of the
qualitative responses were related to additional funding needs. More
than one-third of institutions that responded to this question
expressed a need for technical assistance in the form of research,
training, and other information.
Figure 12: Types of Information or Assistance Reported by Teacher
Preparation Programs That Could Greatly Benefit Their Efforts to
Prepare Teachers to Work with Students with Disabilities and English
Language Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph]
Types of information or assistance: Ways to reform curriculum to better
prepare teachers;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
52%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
52%.
Types of information or assistance: Research-based instructional
strategies;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
48%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
53%.
Types of information or assistance: Strengthening faculty knowledge and
experience;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
43%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
51%.
Types of information or assistance: Developing effective student
teaching opportunities;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
41%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
42%.
Types of information or assistance: Teaching cultural and socioeconomic
awareness[A];
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
0;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
35%.
Types of information or assistance: Reforming state standards to
emphasize preparation for instructing these students;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities:
30%;
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners:
31%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
[A] We asked about information and assistance on teaching cultural and
socioeconomic awareness, in general, and not in relation to any
particular student subgroup.
[End of figure]
The States We Visited Set Varying Requirements for the Preparation of
Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners, though All Offered Ongoing Training to Teachers and
Experienced Challenges Meeting Training Needs:
The four states we visited varied in their coursework and field
experience requirements for teacher preparation programs for
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners.
In addition to setting requirements for teacher preparation programs,
each of the four states and eight school districts provided training
opportunities to practicing teachers for instructing these student
subgroups. Nevertheless, officials said they faced challenges providing
training to prospective and practicing teachers.
The States We Visited Set Varying Requirements for Preparing Teachers
to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners:
Coursework Requirements for Teacher Preparation Programs:
The standards set by the four states we visited for teacher preparation
programs required varying coursework for prospective teachers on
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners.
California and Nebraska prescribed specific topics related to
instructing students with disabilities that must be covered by teacher
preparation programs in their states. Specifically, programs in these
states must cover information on types of disabilities, meeting the
needs of special education students in the general classroom, and
knowledge of the individualized education program process. In Georgia
and Texas, state standards require that all teacher preparation
programs provide coursework on students with disabilities, and Georgia
specifies that at least one course must be entirely focused on students
with disabilities, although the structure of this course can
vary.[Footnote 29] California, which is home to nearly one-third of the
nation's English language learners, also required specific coursework
for instructing English language learners, such as tools for English
language development, teaching strategies, and legal requirements, as
well as requirements for coursework on student diversity. The other
three states we visited also required coursework on student diversity,
although only Georgia defined language as a type of diversity.
Nebraska's and Texas's requirements do not specifically mention
language or English language learners in the diversity requirements.
[Footnote 30] However, these three states offer teachers the
opportunity to obtain additional targeted training to work with these
students, often referred to as an English as a second language (ESL)
endorsement.[Footnote 31]
Field Experience Requirements for Teacher Preparation Programs:
Among the four states we visited, only California required field
experiences with both students with disabilities and English language
learners. State educational officials from two of the other states
explained that programs already provide or try to provide these
placements, and so requiring it was unnecessary. For example, a senior
official from Nebraska's teacher certification office said that the
state has not considered requiring field experience with students with
disabilities since programs clearly make an effort to offer these
experiences for prospective teachers, as these opportunities are more
universally available. However, she said that they have not made field
experiences with English language learners a requirement, because so
few districts have large populations of these students.
State Outreach to Teacher Preparation Programs:
During our site visits, we learned of a few examples that involved each
of the four states conducting outreach to teacher preparation programs
on preparing prospective teachers to instruct students with
disabilities and English language learners. For example, Georgia's
state educational agency convened both special and general education
faculty members to discuss issues related to preparing prospective
teachers to instruct students with disabilities. In Texas, as part of
an annual meeting for institutions of higher education that received
federal grant funding to improve teacher quality, the state agency for
higher education recently presented effective instructional strategies
to higher education faculty for math and science teachers to use with
English language learners.
Each State and School District We Visited Provided Assistance to
Practicing Teachers for Instructing Both Student Subgroups:
State and District Assistance for Practicing Teachers with Students
with Disabilities:
In addition to support for prospective teachers, each of the four state
educational agencies and the eight school districts we visited provided
training to practicing general classroom teachers on instructing
students with disabilities. At the state level, assistance provided to
general classroom teachers focused on special education initiatives
designed for use in the general classroom. For example, all four states
told us about initiatives that focused on meeting the educational needs
of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms through Response
to Intervention and co-teaching.[Footnote 32] Response to Intervention
helps general classroom teachers, as part of a multidisciplinary team
effort, to identify struggling learners and adapt to their learning
styles, while co-teaching involves pairing a general classroom teacher
with a special education teacher. California and Georgia both reported
developing written guidance and training on co-teaching for use at the
local level by teachers and administrators. Three of the state
educational agencies we spoke with also offered online resources such
as links to various Education-funded technical assistance centers and
grant-related information, including federal formula funding under ESEA
and IDEA that can be used to help general classroom teachers in
instructing students with disabilities.
Conversely, many of the district officials and school administrators we
spoke with said they primarily focused on meeting the needs of their
special education teachers, but support was typically available to
general classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities
through instructional coaches hired by the districts or special
education personnel at the individual schools. Overall, general
classroom teachers we spoke with said they relied on assistance from
special education teachers within their schools, and several schools
mentioned having co-teaching arrangements in place. Finally, three of
the districts reported requiring training for general classroom
teachers to instruct students with disabilities. For example, one
district in Nebraska required all elementary teachers to take training
on Response to Intervention. Nationwide, an Education-funded survey
found that almost all school districts provided professional
development for teachers with at least some emphasis on instructional
strategies for students with individualized education programs under
IDEA.[Footnote 33]
State and District Assistance for Practicing Teachers with English
Language Learners:
Consistent with the assistance provided to help teachers instruct
students with disabilities, all four of our selected states held
statewide conferences or trainings offered by the state or through
regional educational service centers to help general classroom teachers
instruct English language learners. State officials reported that these
trainings focused on implementing statewide English language
development standards and assessments, as well as specific content
areas and grade levels. For example, Texas has for nearly 20 years
offered an annual statewide symposium on the instruction of English
language learners at the secondary level. Another example is the
California Subject Matter Project, a network of 15 regional
professional development providers that offers training and technical
assistance to school districts, individual schools, and teachers on
instructional techniques for English language learners in specific
content areas, such as math and science.[Footnote 34] National data
obtained by Education found that for the 2005-2006 school year, 42 out
of 49 states that responded, including the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, reported offering professional development to mainstream
teachers who instruct English language learners.[Footnote 35] In
addition, three of the four states we visited reported providing online
resources that can be accessed by general classroom teachers, such as
written guidance and online training on best practices for instructing
this student subgroup.
The eight districts we visited, most of which had higher concentrations
of English language learners than the average district in their state,
offered training opportunities and hired instructional coaches to
provide individualized support to general classroom teachers with these
students. School districts reported either providing training directly
to teachers or helping them access training from other entities. For
example, teachers from the Los Angeles Unified School District
participated in an Education-funded program through a local institution
of higher education, which provided training on instructional
strategies and required teachers to visit the homes of their students
with limited English proficiency to gain a better understanding of the
students' cultural backgrounds. Nationwide, an Education-funded survey
found that approximately 50 percent of districts provided professional
development for teachers with at least some emphasis on instructional
strategies for students with limited English proficiency.[Footnote 36]
A number of the school districts we visited also encouraged teachers to
earn an ESL endorsement by paying for the course or offering financial
incentives after teachers received their endorsement. Four districts
required general classroom teachers to receive training to better
prepare them to instruct English language learners. For example, a
Texas district requires teachers trained through alternative routes to
receive a supplemental ESL certification. Several of the districts we
visited used ESEA Title I, Title II, and Title III funding to hire
English language learner instructional coaches and related personnel
who could assist all teachers with instructional strategies, cultural
issues, and other areas. Many of the teachers we spoke with reported
relying on these personnel to assist them. At the individual school
level, we also learned of schoolwide approaches to ensure that content
is accessible to all students. For example, teachers in an elementary
school we visited in Nebraska used visual tools to help students
struggling with English by depicting illustrations of concepts that may
be difficult to comprehend in writing.
We noted some differences in the type of assistance provided for either
subgroup depending on the size of the district.[Footnote 37] In
general, the smaller districts we visited made training available to
their teachers through regional educational service centers and state
educational agencies, in addition to institutions of higher education.
Larger school districts we visited typically offered their own
districtwide training for teachers, while still using resources offered
by their state educational agency or institutions of higher education.
State Educational Agencies and School Districts Reported Challenges
Ensuring That Practicing Teachers Are Prepared to Instruct Both
Subgroups:
State officials and, at the local level, district officials and school
administrators we spoke with said that general classroom teachers were
generally unprepared to instruct students with disabilities and English
language learners due to three key challenges: (1) limited exposure to
these subgroups in teacher preparation programs, (2) funding and time
to train practicing teachers, and (3) identifying instructional
strategies for both student subgroups. A number of state and school
district officials expressed a desire for a stronger focus in teacher
preparation programs on preparing teachers to instruct both subgroups.
For example, some state and school district officials both reported
wanting more preparation for prospective teachers on differentiating
instruction for diverse educational needs, co-teaching with special
education personnel when working with students with disabilities,
implementing Response to Intervention for monitoring students at risk
for poor learning outcomes, and understanding and instructing different
cultures. Several of the school district officials noted that new
teachers often require additional training or assistance to work with
these subgroups.
Specifically, at the school district level, another challenge
frequently cited by school district officials, administrators, and
teachers in each state was identifying available funding and finding
time for teachers to attend useful training sessions. District
officials said that teachers can receive training during or after the
regular workday, or during the summer, but all of these times have
disadvantages. For example, releasing teachers for training during
regular work hours incurs costs for substitute teachers, which states
and districts said is challenging because of limited funding and
competing priorities. Also, training in the summer and after hours is
not always feasible due to contracts and personal schedules. One
principal said that scheduling training during the summer is difficult
because teachers are not required to attend. Teachers at one school
said they struggle to participate in training outside the workday
because it is difficult to fit into their schedules. Some school
districts we spoke with were addressing these challenges by asking
teachers who receive training to hold information-sharing sessions with
other teachers in their school, and by arranging training opportunities
at individual schools where teachers might be more likely to
participate because of reduced time and travel burdens.
Additional challenges, particularly in instructing English language
learners were identified by a number of school district officials,
administrators, and teachers, including the need for more information
on instructional strategies, assessing student progress, and
understanding cultural issues. At the individual schools we visited,
general classroom teachers and administrators we spoke with identified
the need for instructional strategies specifically to address
challenges in instructing English language learners, such as adjusting
instruction to meet the varying needs of students, assessing each
student's ability to understand content, and teaching students when
their schooling is interrupted due to family mobility. A number of
administrators and teachers discussed the challenges they face in
understanding the numerous cultures represented by their students as
well as communicating with families who have limited English
proficiency. We also learned of some unique challenges for teachers at
the secondary level who instruct English language learners. For
example, officials in one of the states explained that instructing
English language learners at the secondary level is challenging because
the students must make tremendous gains in both complex content and
language in a relatively short time to meet graduation requirements.
Some of these students have arrived to the country recently or have
limited formal education. Officials in one district noted that these
students may become frustrated with learning a new language, and
teachers struggle to understand their cultural differences. In
addition, because students spend time with different teachers for
different content areas at the secondary level, teachers have
difficulty coordinating their instruction for English language learner
students.
Multiple Education Offices Provide Assistance to Help Teachers Instruct
Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, but No
Systematic Coordination Exists among These Offices:
Six Education offices provide financial support and oversee about 100
regional and national research and technical assistance providers that
can work at the state and local levels to help general classroom
teachers instruct students with disabilities and English language
learners.[Footnote 38] However, no departmentwide mechanism exists
within Education to ensure that all relevant offices work together to
maximize the department's contributions toward preparing teachers to
effectively instruct these student subgroups. The grant programs and
research and technical assistance providers overseen by these offices
are shown in figure 13 and are discussed in more detail in the
following sections.[Footnote 39]
Figure 13: Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Regional and
National Research and Technical Assistance Providers That Can Support
Teacher Preparation to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English
Language Learners:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
U.S. Department of Education:
IES: Institute of Education Sciences;
* Regional research and technical assistance provider:
- Regional Educational Laboratories (10);
* National research and technical assistance provider:
- National Centers on Education and Special Education Research;
- Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of
English Language Learners;
- What Works Clearinghouse.
OII: Office of Innovation and Improvement;
* Grant program:
- Teacher Quality Partnership Grants.
OPEPD: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development;
* National research and technical assistance provider:
- Doing What Works.
OSERS: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services;
* Grant programs:
- IDEA Grant Programs (Parts B and D);
* Regional research and technical assistance provider:
- Regional Resource Centers (6);
* National research and technical assistance provider:
- Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network (48 centers).
OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education;
* Grant programs:
- ESEA Grant Programs (Titles I and II, Title III-formula);
* Regional research and technical assistance providers:
- Regional Comprehensive Centers (16);
- Regional Equity Assistance Centers (10);
* National research and technical assistance provider:
- National Content Centers (5); 3 jointly funded by OSERS.
OELA: Office of English Language Acquisition;
* Grant program:
- ESEA Grant Programs (Title III-discretionary);
* National research and technical assistance provider:
- National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
Sources: GAO analysis of Education documents and interviews with
officials, Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
Ten Grant Programs Overseen by Four Education Offices Can Help Teachers
Instruct These Student Subgroups:
Ten grant programs administered by four Education offices either
require or allow grantees to use some of the funds to help general
classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and English
language learners. Most of the funding focuses on training practicing
teachers already in the classroom rather than prospective teachers,
although none of the programs specifically tracks the use of funds to
prepare general classroom teachers to instruct either of these
subgroups. Four different Education offices--the Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education (OESE), Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and Office of English Language
Acquisition (OELA), and the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII)--
oversee these grants, each with a respective specific focus on
elementary and secondary education generally, special education,
English language acquisition, or innovative educational practices. See
table 2 for a description of the 10 programs we identified within these
four offices.
Table 2: Ten Federal Programs Provide Funding That Can Be Used to
Prepare General Classroom Teachers to Work with Students with
Disabilities and English Language Learners:
Require at least some funds to be used to prepare or train teachers to
instruct one of these subgroups:
Program name and legislative authority: English Language Acquisition
State Grants, Title III, Part A, ESEA;
Education office: OESE;
Subgroup targeted: English language learners;
Purpose: To improve the education of English language learners by
helping them learn English and meet state academic content and student
academic achievement standards. Some of the funds must be used to
support high-quality professional development for classroom
teachers[A];
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$677.6, Formula[B].
Program name and legislative authority: Teacher Quality Partnership
Grants, Title II, HEA;
Education office: OII;
Subgroup targeted: All students;
Purpose: To improve student achievement and the quality of prospective
and new teachers by improving the preparation of prospective teachers
and enhancing professional development activities for new teachers. The
program also holds teacher preparation programs at institutions of
higher education accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers
and supports recruiting highly qualified individuals, including
minorities and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching
force;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$50.0[C], Competitive[D].
Program name and legislative authority: Special Education Technical
Assistance and Dissemination, Part D, IDEA;
Education office: OSERS;
Subgroup targeted: Students with disabilities;
Purpose: To promote academic achievement and improve results for
children with disabilities by providing technical assistance, model
demonstration projects, and dissemination of information, and
implementation of activities that are supported by scientifically based
research;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$48.5, Competitive.
Program name and legislative authority: English Language Acquisition
National Professional Development Project, Title III, Part A, ESEA;
Education office: OELA;
Subgroup targeted: English language learners;
Purpose: To support preparation for prospective teachers and
professional development activities for education personnel working
with English language learners;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$41.8, Competitive.
Allow funds to be used to prepare or train teachers to instruct one of
these subgroups:
Program name and legislative authority: Improving Basic Programs
Operated by Local Educational Agencies, Title I, Part A, ESEA;
Education office: OESE;
Subgroup targeted: All students;
Purpose: To provide assistance to local educational agencies and
schools with high numbers or high percentages of poor children to help
ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$14,492.4[E], Formula.
Program name and legislative authority: Special Education-Grants to
States, Part B, IDEA;
Education office: OSERS;
Subgroup targeted: Students with disabilities;
Purpose: To assist states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
freely associated states, and outlying areas in meeting the costs of
providing special education and related services to children with
disabilities;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$11,505.2[F], Formula.
Program name and legislative authority: Improving Teacher Quality State
Grants, Title II, Part A, ESEA;
Education office: OESE;
Subgroup targeted: All students;
Purpose: To increase academic achievement by improving teacher and
principal quality;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$2,947.7, Formula[G].
Program name and legislative authority: Special Education-Personnel
Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with
Disabilities, Part D, IDEA;
Education office: OSERS;
Subgroup targeted: Students with disabilities;
Purpose: To help address state-identified needs for highly qualified
personnel in special education, related services, early intervention,
and regular education to work with children with disabilities, and to
ensure that those personnel have the skills and knowledge needed to
serve these children;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$90.7, Competitive.
Program name and legislative authority: Special Education-State
Personnel Development Grants Program, Part D, IDEA;
Education office: OSERS;
Subgroup targeted: Students with disabilities;
Purpose: To assist state educational agencies in reforming and
improving their systems for personnel preparation and professional
development in early intervention, educational, and transitional
services in order to improve results for children with disabilities;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$48.0, Competitive.
Program name and legislative authority: Native American and Alaska
Native Children in School Program, Title III, Part A, ESEA;
Education office: OELA;
Subgroup targeted: English language learners;
Purpose: To develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and
to promote parental and community participation in language instruction
educational programs. Some of the funds must be used to support high-
quality professional development for classroom teachers;
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding:
$5.0, Competitive.
Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation. Budget information
from fiscal year 2009 budget appropriations and Education's Fiscal Year
2009 Budget Summary and Background Information.
[A] This program includes teachers in classroom settings that are not
the settings of language instructional education programs in its
definition of classroom teachers.
[B] The eligible recipients for the formula grant programs in this
table are state educational agencies, which then pass much of the
funding through to local educational agencies.
[C] The Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program received an
additional $100 million for fiscal year 2009 through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5), signed
into law on February 17, 2009. Funds from the Recovery Act are not
reflected in this table.
[D] Eligible recipients for many of the competitive grant programs in
the table include institutions of higher education, state educational
agencies, local educational agencies, or nonprofit organizations,
sometimes in consortia or partnerships with each other.
[E] The Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies
program received an additional $10 billion through the Recovery Act for
fiscal year 2009.
[F] The Special Education-Grants to States program received an
additional $11.3 billion through the Recovery Act for fiscal year 2009.
[G] Of the overall funding for Title II, Part A, 2.5 percent--roughly
$74 million--went to the state agency for higher education in each
state to run a competitive statewide partnership grants program.
[End of table]
While together these programs provided nearly $30 billion, excluding
funds from the Recovery Act, none of the programs specifically tracked
the extent to which grantees use these funds to prepare general
classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English
language learners, and several of the programs' proposed designs
suggested the funding used for this purpose was a relatively small
portion of the overall funding available. For example, the two largest
programs under the ESEA--the Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A) and Improving Teacher Quality
State Grants program (Title II, Part A)--are large, multibillion dollar
formula grant programs designed to provide flexibility to states and
school districts to address their needs in a variety of areas and
benefit a wide range of students. While these two programs had fiscal
year 2004 appropriations of $12.3 billion for Title I, Part A and $2.9
billion for Title II, Part A, Education reported that the districts
spent 8 percent and 18 percent of these funds, respectively, for
professional development in 2004-2005. Officials emphasized that
professional development funds are used to train practicing teachers in
a wide range of topic areas, which may include helping general
classroom teachers instruct these student subgroups. Based on our
interviews with state and school district officials in the four states
we visited, we learned that funds from these programs allowed school
districts to assist teachers working with students with disabilities
and English language learners. Examples included hiring educational
coaches to work with general classroom teachers, paying for substitute
teachers to allow teachers to attend training sessions, and providing
support for statewide conferences.
Of the 10 grant programs we identified, 3 specifically targeted English
language learners; 4 targeted students with disabilities; and the
remaining 3 benefited all students, including those in these two
student subgroups. The programs targeting English language learners
aimed to prepare any teacher working with this subgroup. State
educational and school district officials we met with who received
funding from the largest of the three programs that targeted English
language learners--the English Language Acquisition State Grants
program--provided examples of how they used these funds to support
general classroom teachers. This support included stipends for teachers
to attend relevant workshops, hiring bilingual and cultural liaisons to
work individually with teachers, and districtwide training sessions. In
support of instruction for students with disabilities, OSERS's Special
Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination program specifies
funds to be used to provide training for both general education and
special education teachers, among other required uses. The grantees
disseminate research and provide technical assistance on a wide range
of special education topics. Several of the grantees we spoke with
reported providing information both online and through in-person
workshops that can benefit general classroom teachers. Similarly, the
Special Education-State Personnel Development Grant Program requires 90
percent of funds to be spent on personnel preparation and professional
development related to instructing students with disabilities; while
general classroom teachers can benefit from the activities, Education
officials emphasized the main purpose of the program is to prepare
prospective and practicing special education teachers. California
reported using this funding to support a program that helps teachers
address behavioral issues for the general education curricula, and
Georgia provided support to middle and secondary level math teachers to
improve instruction to students with disabilities.
While most of the overall funding supports practicing teachers already
in the classroom, rather than preparing prospective teachers at the
teacher preparation level, three of the grant programs--which accounted
for approximately $183 million--either require or allow funding to
prepare prospective teachers to instruct these subgroups. (See table 3
for information on which programs required or allowed funding to
prepare prospective teachers to instruct these subgroups.) For example,
the HEA Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, as amended by HEOA,
requires grantees to prepare prospective teachers to meet the specific
learning needs of all students, including students with disabilities
and English language learners. Similarly, in its fiscal year 2007
request for proposals, the English Language Acquisition National
Professional Development Project invited proposals from teacher
education programs on ways to improve their programs to better prepare
prospective teachers to provide instruction to English language
learners, among other goals. According to a senior program official,
about half of the applicants responded to this priority.
Table 3: Funding Required or Allowed to Prepare or Train Prospective or
Practicing Teachers:
ESEA: Program name: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed;
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed.
ESEA: Program name: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed;
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed.
ESEA: Program name: English Language Acquisition State Grants;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Required.
ESEA: Program name: English Language Acquisition National Professional
Development Project;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: Allowed;
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Required.
ESEA: Program name: Native American and Alaska Native Children in
School Program;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed.
HEA: Program name: Teacher Quality Partnership Grants;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: Required;
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: Required;
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty].
IDEA: Program name: Special Education-Grants to States;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed;
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty].
IDEA: Program name: Special Education-Personnel Development to Improve
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: Allowed;
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed;
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty].
IDEA: Program name: Special Education-National Activities-Technical
Assistance and Dissemination;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Required;
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty].
IDEA: Program name: Special Education-State Personnel Development Grant
Program;
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed;
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty];
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of Education documentation.
[End of table]
Education Oversees Numerous Regional and National Providers That Offer
Assistance to Prospective and Practicing Teachers for Instructing
Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners:
In addition to grants for teacher preparation and training, a number of
Education offices support regional and national research institutions
and technical assistance providers offering help to policymakers and
educators at the state and local levels. Specifically, three different
program offices support four types of regional technical assistance
providers that can help general classroom teachers instruct students
with disabilities and English language learners, among other activities
(see appendix II for more information on the regional research and
technical assistance centers we interviewed).
Regional Research and Technical Assistance Providers:
* Regional comprehensive centers: Supported by OESE to work with state
educational agencies to help increase state capacity to assist regional
education agencies, school districts, and individual schools in meeting
their student achievement goals. While the regional comprehensive
centers are designed to work with state educational agencies, they can
assist general classroom teachers to instruct students with
disabilities or English language learners if requested by states. For
example, one regional comprehensive center we spoke with has developed
a training course for general classroom teachers on instructing English
language learners, which trains small teams involving teachers and
their principal, and the information is expected to be shared with
colleagues in the home schools. We also spoke with some of the teachers
who attended the training, who reported that it was the first time the
school obtained a practical and useful manual on how to instruct
English language learners. An administrator who was involved in the
program also commented that his involvement helped teachers effectively
share the strategies they learned with their colleagues.
* Regional equity assistance centers: Supported by OESE to work with
school districts and other responsible government entities to ensure
that their policies and procedures provide equitable opportunities for
all students, regardless of race or national origin. Most of the
centers we interviewed provided training on instructional strategies
for English language learners. For example, one equity assistance
center conducted a session for one state's local regional educational
service centers on classroom strategies for English language learners
that the service center could then pass on to school districts in its
region.
* Regional resource centers: Supported by OSERS to assist state and
local educational agencies in the development and implementation of
performance plans and measurement systems based on indicators
established by the office. While this may include helping states
prepare general classroom teachers for instructing students with
disabilities, it is not a stated priority for these centers. In
general, the regional resource centers we interviewed reported that
their main focus is on assisting state educational agencies to develop
and implement performance plans for serving students with disabilities,
and that any direct work with general classroom teachers is tangential.
However, one regional resource center we spoke with reported that the
increased focus on Response to Intervention has focused its work more
on general classroom teachers.
* Regional educational laboratories: Supported by the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES) to provide policymakers, administrators, and
teachers with expert advice, training, and technical assistance on how
to interpret the latest findings from scientifically valid research
pertaining to the requirements of ESEA. In instances in which
scientific evidence is not available, the regional educational
laboratories conduct applied research and development projects. For
example, one regional educational laboratory is performing a study on
whether using materials specifically written for English language
learners increases student achievement. The laboratories' work is based
on requests from states and school districts. None of the laboratories
we spoke with focused on providing training or technical assistance
directly to general classroom teachers. The research conducted by these
centers is made publicly available through Education and individual
laboratory Web sites.
In addition, several Education offices oversee numerous national
research and technical assistance providers that can assist teacher
preparation programs, state educational agencies, and those working at
the school district level with research, policy, and effective
instructional practices for teaching students with disabilities and
English language learners. These centers focus on a wide range of
education issues and serve different target audiences (see appendix III
for more information on the national research and technical assistance
centers we interviewed).
National Research and Technical Assistance Providers:
* OESE supports five national content centers with expertise on
specific issues facing educators. These centers primarily support the
regional comprehensive centers in their efforts to work with states.
Three of the centers--the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality, the Center on Instruction, and the National High School
Center--are jointly funded with OSERS and thus focus some of their
activities on students with disabilities.
* OSERS supports a network of more than 40 national technical
assistance centers, each with a focus on some aspect of special
education. For example, two of the centers--the National Center on
Response to Intervention and the Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports--focus, respectively, on strategies to
identify struggling learners and implement appropriate interventions in
the general classroom setting and strategies to develop schoolwide
disciplinary practices. In addition, the IRIS Center for Training
Enhancements provides case studies and interactive online training
modules that include video scenarios to allow users to see teachers
engaging in various strategies to meet the needs of students with
disabilities. These materials are publicly available online and are
accessed by entities such as institutions of higher education, state
educational agencies, and school districts.
* OELA oversees the National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition, which is tasked with assisting states to implement Title
III of ESEA and increasing their capacity to improve English language
learner achievement. Through its Web site, the National Clearinghouse
for English Language Acquisition provides resources for teachers on
many aspects of the English language learner population and links to
lesson plans and classroom techniques suitable for both specialists and
general classroom teachers. The clearinghouse also helps state
educational agencies with collecting and reporting data in compliance
with ESEA Title III, and works with states to implement standards and
assessments for these students. In addition, OELA supports the Limited
English Proficiency Partnership, which provides a wide array of
services and products to assist teachers in instructing English
language learners.
* IES administers a national resource for administrators and educators,
the What Works Clearinghouse, which assesses research on the
effectiveness of programs, products, practices, and policies so that
educators are able to make informed decisions. The What Works
Clearinghouse also produces practice guides for educators that address
instructional challenges with research-based recommendations for
schools and classrooms, which has included a practice guide focused on
strategies for instructing English language learners and two recently
issued guides on Response to Intervention. IES also administers the
Education Resources Information Center, an online database of millions
of published materials that Education has provided for the last 35
years, which officials said can be a valuable resource, especially for
teacher preparation programs. In addition, IES oversees the National
Research and Development Centers program, which includes the Center for
Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English
Language Learners, a national center primarily focused on research.
Finally, IES funds and disseminates research through its National
Center for Education Research and the National Center for Special
Education Research, which can include research on preparing prospective
and practicing teachers to instruct students with disabilities and
English language learners.
* The Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD)
manages Doing What Works, a Web site that translates What Works
Clearinghouse practice guides into practical plans for teachers and
local school districts. The Web site includes a tutorial to help
teachers instruct English language learners and is currently in the
process of developing modules on Response to Intervention for both math
and reading.
Most of the regional and national providers of research and technical
assistance we interviewed focus on support to benefit practicing
teachers already in the classroom, rather than prospective teachers
enrolled in teacher preparation programs. Only one of the national
providers we spoke with specifically focuses on teacher preparation
programs, and it had recently expanded its focus to practicing teachers
under its latest contract. However, a few providers reported that
teacher preparation programs likely use their materials, even if the
provider's interaction with these programs was not the main focus of
their work. For example, while not the main focus of the center, one
research center that focuses on the instruction of English language
learners reported that its research has tangentially influenced teacher
preparation programs through its partnerships with faculty at
institutions of higher education.
Despite these research and technical assistance providers' outreach
activities, most teachers and administrators in the eight school
districts we visited said they were unaware of many of the resources
available. Some providers reported conducting outreach primarily to
states, relying on state educational agencies to disseminate resources
or information about their services to the local level. Several
providers also reported some efforts to disseminate information through
conference presentations, e-mail lists, and regular newsletters
directly to all interested parties. However, we heard from a number of
teachers and administrators that they had limited awareness of these
Education-funded resources. Some said they did not have the time to
review all of the available resources to find relevant materials.
Education officials acknowledged the challenges faced in disseminating
information broadly and reported recent improvements. For example,
Doing What Works, which is focused on providing practical information
to teachers, reported plans to increase its outreach efforts to
classroom teachers as its available resources increase, and OSERS has
funded a center to assist its entire provider network with
disseminating information.
A Departmentwide Mechanism for Coordinating the Relevant Activities of
These Multiple Offices within Education Could Ensure the Most Efficient
Use of Resources:
Six offices within Education, each with its own subject matter focus
and priorities, oversee the multiple grant programs and regional and
national technical assistance providers that can support general
classroom teachers' efforts to instruct students with disabilities and
English language learners.
Officials from each of the six Education offices that administer grant
programs and other assistance related to preparing teachers for
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners
reported that some offices coordinate on individual efforts. For
example, OSERS and OESE jointly fund and oversee the National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, the National Center on
Response to Intervention, and the Center on Instruction. OPEPD has also
made efforts to coordinate with other Education offices, particularly
with IES. Specifically, OPEPD has modified the contract for its Doing
What Works initiative--from an initiative that performs its own
research to produce teacher training modules to one that develops and
disseminates modules demonstrating teaching strategies based on
empirical research performed by IES. This effort has helped to make
IES's research available on a practical level to practicing general
classroom teachers who instruct students with disabilities and English
language learners; however, Education officials noted that the publicly
available information may also be used by prospective teachers and
their instructors within teacher preparation programs.
Coordination among and within select Education offices also extends to
the regional and national technical assistance providers they oversee.
For example, OSERS and OESE collaborate on an annual conference that
convenes the regional and national technical assistance providers they
fund to discuss best practices and opportunities for increased
coordination with respect to specific issues related to students with
disabilities. As a result of the conference, the regional equity
assistance centers, regional comprehensive centers, and regional
resource centers from the Northeast and relevant national technical
assistance providers have planned and implemented collaborative
initiatives, such as a joint survey of regional needs in implementing
Response to Intervention. Education officials told us that a similar
initiative has also been launched in the North Central region.
Officials from these technical assistance providers reported that this
collaboration has led to a more efficient use of resources, a better
understanding of all technical assistance programs existing in the
region, and an opportunity to present a unified message to the state
educational agencies with whom they work. In addition, OSERS
established the Technical Assistance Coordination Center in fiscal year
2008 to promote better coordination among its 48 regional and national
technical assistance providers and better information dissemination.
Finally, the National Dissemination Center, also funded by OSERS, is
developing a Web site that will allow the public to search the Web
sites of all technical assistance providers within OSERS's Technical
Assistance and Dissemination Network, as well as OESE's comprehensive
centers and regional equity assistance centers.
Education has also begun new coordination efforts related to the
Recovery Act that involve multiple offices, although these efforts do
not currently focus on assistance to prepare general classroom teachers
to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners.
Given that the Recovery Act provides funds to improve teacher
effectiveness, Education officials said that this presents an
opportunity to coordinate the department's resources to improve teacher
quality. Specifically, Education officials said that they recently
initiated coordination efforts to address the Recovery Act requirements
related to teachers by forming a team made up of representatives from
several program offices and led by the Secretary's advisors.
Despite some coordination efforts among select offices and prior
efforts to coordinate, Education currently lacks a departmentwide
mechanism to ensure that activities administered through these various
offices coordinate their contributions generally, and their activities
to prepare general classroom teachers to instruct students with
disabilities and English language learners, specifically. Many
officials within the program offices we spoke with highlighted a prior
effort to coordinate among offices involved in teacher quality that
convened regular meetings of all relevant program offices. Officials
reported that these meetings apprised them of what other Education
offices were doing with regard to professional development for
teachers. One research office reported they shared the information they
gathered from the field immediately, rather than waiting for a report
to be issued, which helped offices tailor their programs to be current,
rather than lagging behind their needs. Officials we spoke with said
this working group was disbanded due to changing priorities within
Education.
Most of the officials we spoke with in the offices that play a role in
supporting general classroom teachers to instruct students with
disabilities and English language learners noted the potential value of
a departmentwide mechanism for regular coordination among offices to
increase their effectiveness. Officials said systematic coordination
among Education offices related to teacher preparation for these
student subgroups could help at every phase of the grant cycle,
allowing offices to get relevant offices' input into requests for
proposals or guidance it planned to issue. Another official stated that
a departmentwide mechanism would help Education offices share
information, so that offices that may have less experience working with
these student subgroups can better understand and address their needs.
For example, with the 2008 reauthorization of HEA, OII's Teacher
Quality Partnership Grant program now requires a focus on preparing
general classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and
English language learners, for which OSERS's and OELA's expertise would
be valuable. Officials noted that coordinating with other offices could
enable program offices to benefit from the information obtained by
Education's relevant research institutions, such as those overseen by
IES. One official stated that a lack of coordination among relevant
offices can lead to a loss in capacity because information is not as
readily shared, particularly for cross-cutting issues such as preparing
general classroom teachers for students with disabilities and English
language learners. Several officials also emphasized the need for
support from top management officials for departmentwide coordination
among offices because, without this support, coordination is likely to
become less of a priority for the offices.
Our findings are similar to those of a related July 2009 report on
Education's teacher quality initiatives.[Footnote 40] For example, we
said in that report that teacher quality activities within Education
are overseen by nine different program offices with little sustained
coordination and no strategy for working systematically across program
lines. The report recommended that the Secretary of Education establish
and implement a strategy for sustained coordination among existing
departmental offices and programs to aid information and resource
sharing, and strengthen linkages among its efforts to help improve
teacher quality. In its response to a draft of that report, Education
said that it would consider forming a cross-program group focused on
teacher quality, but also pointed out that such efforts do not always
prove useful, indicating that it favors short-term, issue-specific
coordination. In our response to Education in that report, while
acknowledging that the department faces some challenges to
coordination, we emphasized that we continue to believe that Education
needs to develop a strategy for sustained coordination to ensure that
different offices routinely become involved in sharing information and
resources, as well as facilitating linkages among teacher quality
improvement efforts.
Our past work and other federal guidance has highlighted the importance
of coordination to deliver results more efficiently in light of limited
resources and multiple demands. As we have previously reported,
uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and
frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the
program.[Footnote 41] We have also reported that leadership and
organizational culture are necessary elements for a collaborative
working relationship, emphasizing that committed leadership from all
levels of the organization is needed to overcome barriers to
coordination. In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act
offers a structured means, through the development of strategic plans
and performance reports, for identifying multiple programs--within and
outside the agency--that contribute to the same or similar goals and
for describing coordination efforts to ensure that goals are consistent
and program efforts are mutually reinforcing.[Footnote 42]
Conclusions:
Education's performance plan outlines its goals for providing all
children in this country, including students with disabilities and
English language learners, with qualified teachers and the education
they need to meet challenging academic standards. At the same time that
increased attention is being paid to the academic achievement of
students in these subgroups, many of them spend a large proportion of
their day in general classrooms, rather than in special, separate
classes. This places increased emphasis on effectively preparing
general classroom teachers who may instruct these students to help them
meet achievement goals. While federal grants, research, and technical
assistance that can be used to support teachers in achieving these
goals are available, the management and oversight of this assistance is
spread among numerous Education offices. While some of these offices
have recently increased coordination in some areas, coordination among
all relevant offices to share information and expertise related to
students with disabilities and English language learners in the general
classroom does not occur on a regular basis. As a result, Education
offices may not fully benefit from the expertise and experiences
available departmentwide to assist teachers in instructing these
students, which could potentially limit program effectiveness and
prevent the most efficient use of resources.
Greater coordination among Education offices is especially relevant in
light of Congress's new focus, through HEOA, on preparing prospective
teachers for instructing these subgroups, and the Recovery Act, which
substantially increased funding for teacher preparation programs and
for states and school districts to assist prospective and already
practicing teachers. Attention to coordination among relevant offices
specifically focused on assisting general classroom teachers in
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners is
warranted and needs to come from Education's leadership to ensure
support for such an effort and help it endure. More systematic
coordination focused on the ultimate goal of making progress in
academic achievement for students with disabilities and English
language learners in the general classroom would complement increased
emphasis on coordination among Education offices involved in teacher
quality efforts, as we recommended in our related July 2009 report.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Education develop and implement a
departmentwide mechanism to ensure more systematic coordination among
Education's offices that oversee grant programs, research, and
technical assistance that can help prospective and practicing teachers
to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners in
the general classroom.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
Education's comments are reproduced in appendix IV. In its comments,
Education agreed that coordination is beneficial and noted that it will
explore the benefits of creating a mechanism to ensure more systematic
coordination. More specifically, Education will review the advisability
of forming a cross-program committee, but it would first want to ensure
that such a group would lead to improvements in the way Education and
its grantees implement programs that promote teacher quality. It added
that, in the department's experience, creating an intradepartmental
committee for the sole purpose of coordinating agency activities or
sharing information across offices is not always useful, indicating a
preference for bringing different offices together to work on discrete
issues when such action is needed. Education commented that it had
recently increased coordination efforts among multiple program offices
to address new Recovery Act requirements and, as the work of that team
evolves, it will likely make more sense to have it look at issues
related to the teaching of students with disabilities and English
language learners than to establish a separate coordination body
focused narrowly on that area. We revised our report to reflect
Education's new Recovery Act coordination efforts. Education also
provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report as
appropriate.
As we indicated in our conclusions, we believe that more systematic
departmentwide coordination is warranted at this time for several
reasons, including the new focus through HEOA on preparing prospective
teachers for these students and new Recovery Act funding available to
states and school districts. However, we do not specify the particular
method by which Education should address this issue. Education should
use its knowledge of past efforts and existing barriers to explore
various mechanisms for sharing expertise and information among relevant
offices. For example, these could include building upon existing
efforts, as Education noted regarding its Recovery Act coordination
efforts, or exploring new ways to bring people together through
electronic means or in communities of practice that facilitate sharing
of expertise and information. In addition, Education could consider
identifying any specific legislative requirements and other potential
impediments to coordination and develop a strategy for addressing them.
A key component of any coordination mechanism, as we also noted in our
conclusions, is that the coordination effort should come from
Education's leadership to ensure support and help it endure.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, and
other interested parties. In addition, this report will also be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in
appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our review focused on (1) the extent to which teacher preparation
programs require preparation for general classroom teachers to instruct
students with disabilities and English language learners and the
challenges these programs face; (2) the role selected states play in
preparing general classroom teachers to instruct students with
disabilities and English language learners and their challenges; and
(3) funding and other assistance the U.S. Department of Education
(Education) provides to states and teacher preparation programs to help
prepare general classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups.
For the purposes of this engagement, we defined general classroom
teacher as a nonspecialist teacher of the general education curriculum
in a mainstream classroom; we did not include special education
teachers or English as a second language teachers within the scope of
our research.
Survey of Teacher Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher
Education:
We designed and implemented a Web-based survey to gather information on
the extent to which teacher preparation programs administered by
institutions of higher education require preparation for general
classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English
language learners. The population from which we drew our sample
consisted of the institutions of higher education in the 50 states and
the District of Columbia. We identified these institutions from a list
of teacher preparation programs that report annually to their state
educational agencies, as required by the Higher Education Act (HEA). We
obtained the list from Education's Office of Postsecondary Education
(OPE) and supplemented the information with data obtained from state
officials. We assessed the reliability of these data and found them to
be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Our survey was directed to
deans or chairs of colleges or departments of education.
Process for Developing the Survey Instrument:
To develop survey questions, we reviewed existing studies and other
resources on preservice preparation for general classroom teachers to
instruct students with disabilities and English language learners. We
also conducted interviews with faculty members from institutions of
higher education with expertise on these issues and officials from
national membership and accreditation entities for teacher preparation
programs to develop an understanding of the curriculum structure for
prospective elementary and secondary teachers enrolled in traditional
programs and alternative routes to certification offered by these
institutions.[Footnote 43] Finally, we pretested various drafts of our
questionnaire with deans and chairs of colleges and departments of
education at eight institutions of higher education to help ensure that
the questions were clear, the terms used were precise, the questions
were unbiased, and that the questionnaire could be completed in a
reasonable amount of time. We modified the questionnaire to incorporate
findings from each pretest.
Our survey questionnaire obtained information on required courses and
field experiences, challenges facing programs in preparing general
classroom teachers for these student subgroups, program improvements,
and additional assistance received and needed in these areas. For the
sections of our questionnaire pertaining to curricula requirements, we
primarily focused on traditional programs offered by institutions of
higher education that prepare elementary and secondary general
classroom teachers. To a lesser extent, we also included questions on
alternative routes to certification, which may also be offered by these
institutions. All the institutions of higher education within our
sample offered a traditional teacher preparation program for either
prospective elementary or secondary teachers or both. In addition to
traditional teacher preparation programs, these institutions may also
administer alternative routes to certification, and table 4 provides
estimates of the number of programs by type from institutions
responding to our nationwide survey. Finally, given the variation in
the types and structure of various teacher preparation programs, we
only collected data on an institution's largest teacher preparation
program for prospective elementary and secondary teachers, as well as
their largest alternative route to certification program. We asked
institutions to identify their largest programs as those with the
highest number of program completers in the 2007-2008 academic year.
[Footnote 44]
Table 4: Characteristics of Teacher Preparation Programs at
Institutions of Higher Education That Responded to GAO's Survey:
Number of institutions;
Traditional programs: Elementary: 296;
Traditional programs: Secondary: 284;
Alternative routes: 145.
Percentage of total survey respondents (n = 303);
Traditional programs: Elementary: 98.0%;
Traditional programs: Secondary: 95.9%;
Alternative routes: 50.5%.
Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.
[End of table]
Data Source for Survey of Institutions of Higher Education:
To survey institutions of higher education that administer teacher
preparation programs, we selected a probability sample of these
institutions. The universe of institutions from which we drew our
sample was a 2007 list of 1,344 traditional teacher preparation
programs obtained from Education's OPE, which included all institutions
of higher education that administer traditional teacher preparation
programs reporting annually to their respective state, as required by
Title II of HEA. Because OPE's list did not include programs from Iowa,
Montana, and Nebraska, we interviewed state officials from these states
and identified an additional 57 traditional programs for our sampling
frame.[Footnote 45] To finalize our sampling frame from this list of
data from OPE and state officials, we omitted programs that were
outside the scope of our research.[Footnote 46] As a result, we had a
sampling frame comprised of 1,272 institutions of higher education that
offer traditional teacher preparation programs. From this list, which
we sorted alphabetically by state, we drew a systematic random sample
of 376 institutions to participate in our survey, and we eliminated two
institutions from the sample because they did not meet the definition
of a traditional teacher preparation program offered by an institution
of higher education.
Administration Method for Survey of Institutions of Higher Education:
We conducted the survey using a Web-based, self-administered
questionnaire. In the questionnaire, we asked the deans or chairs of
colleges or departments of education to be the lead survey respondent
and, if necessary, to confer with other faculty members within their
institution to answer questions requiring more detailed knowledge. We
collected contact information for these institutions by cross-
referencing the list of institutions with a list obtained from a
national accreditation entity for teacher preparation programs and
through searches of these institutions' Web sites. Through e-mails and
phone contacts, we verified the contact information provided from these
resources. We sent e-mail notifications to these officials beginning on
September 30, 2008. To encourage them to respond, we sent four follow-
up e-mails over a period of about 8 weeks. During this time, staff and
contractors made phone calls to encourage those who did not respond to
complete our questionnaire. In all, 303 institutions of higher
education completed the survey for a response rate of 81 percent. We
performed a nonresponse analysis and found no evidence of a significant
potential for nonresponse bias in our survey results. Thus, our
response rate for this survey allowed us to generalize our survey
results to the population of teacher preparation programs administrated
by institutions of higher education.
Possible Errors Inherent in Probability Samples:
Survey results based on probability samples are subject to sampling
error. The sample we drew for our survey is only one of a large number
of samples we might have drawn. Because different samples could have
provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the
precision of our particular sample results as a 95 percent confidence
interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population
values for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result,
we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in
this report will include the true values in the study population.
Unless otherwise noted, the margin of error associated with the
confidence intervals of our survey estimates is no more than plus or
minus 6 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.
Efforts to Minimize Nonsampling Errors:
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce
other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, difficulties in the way a particular question is interpreted,
in the sources of information that are available to respondents, or in
the way the data are entered into the database or were analyzed can
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps
in the development of this questionnaire, in the data collection, and
in the data analysis to minimize such errors. Specifically, a survey
specialist designed the questionnaire in collaboration with staff who
have subject matter expertise. Then, as previously mentioned, the draft
questionnaire was pretested with eight institutions of higher education
to ensure that questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to
comprehend. The questionnaire was also reviewed by an additional survey
specialist and five external experts in the fields of teacher
preparation, English language acquisition, and special education. Data
analysis was conducted by a data analyst working directly with staff
who have subject matter expertise. When the data were analyzed, a
second independent data analyst checked all computer programs for
accuracy. Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their
answers directly into the electronic questionnaires. This eliminated
the need to have the data keyed into databases, thus removing an
additional source of error.
Site Visits to Selected States and School Districts:
To understand the role of selected states in preparing both prospective
and practicing teachers to work with students with disabilities and
English language learners, we interviewed state and local officials in
four states--California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas. We selected
states that met a range of conditions, primarily focusing on states
either with a high concentration of the population ages 5 to 21 years
who speak English "less than very well" or that experienced growth in
this population ages 5 to 17 years from 1990 and 2000, as well as
geographic diversity. In addition, we took into consideration states
with higher-than-average percentages of students with disabilities
served under IDEA, Part B who spent more than 80 percent of their day
in a general education classroom. During our site visits, we
interviewed officials at state educational agencies, state agencies for
higher education, and school districts, as well as principals and
teachers, in these four states to understand the extent to which
federal funding was used to support teacher preparation for instructing
these student subgroups, the challenges they faced in ensuring that
teachers are prepared to work with these students, and assistance
Education provided to support teachers in instructing these students in
mainstream classrooms.
Within our four selected states, we identified two school districts, or
local educational agencies, for site visits (see table 5). To identify
school districts for site visits, we focused on sites that had (1)
partnerships with institutions of higher education as part of
discretionary grants under Titles II and III of ESEA and Title II of
HEA and (2) percentages of at least one of the student subgroups that
were higher than the average for the state. In addition, we worked to
get a range of urban and rural locations and also took into
consideration the size of the district, amount of federal formula grant
funding, and recommendations from state officials of districts with
high or growing concentrations of English language learners. We visited
one or two individual schools in each district at the elementary and
secondary levels that either partnered with an institution of higher
education as part of an Education grant-funded project or was
recommended by school district officials. Using a standard set of
questions, we asked district officials and school administrators about
their use of federal funds, challenges in ensuring that teachers are
equipped to instruct these students, and assistance needed and received
from state agencies and Education. In addition, we gained insight from
teachers working with these students by learning about their preservice
and in-service training in relation to their on-the-job experiences.
Table 5: School Districts GAO Visited in Four Selected States:
School district: Los Angeles Unified School District;
Location: Los Angeles, California.
School district: New Hope Elementary School District;
Location: Thornton, California.
School district: Gwinnett County Public Schools;
Location: Suwanee, Georgia.
School district: Houston County Schools;
Location: Perry, Georgia.
School district: Lexington Public Schools;
Location: Lexington, Nebraska.
School district: Lincoln Public Schools;
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska.
School district: Austin Independent School
District; Location: Austin, Texas.
School district: Canutillo Independent School
District; Location: El Paso, Texas.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Analysis of Education's Survey Data:
To provide additional information from state and local educational
officials on a national scale, including teachers, we analyzed
nationally representative survey data collected by Education through
its National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and
State Survey on the Implementation of No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB).
The NLS-NCLB data are from a nationally representative survey of
teachers, as well as of schools and school districts. The SSI-NCLB data
are from surveys of state Title I and III Directors. We assessed the
reliability of the NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB methodologies by (1) reviewing
existing information and documentation about the survey data and (2)
interviewing an agency official knowledgeable about the data. We found
both of these surveys and methodologies to conform to generally
accepted social science research standards.
Review of Education-Funded Grant Programs, Research, and Technical
Assistance:
To review relevant funding and other assistance provided by Education,
we first compiled a list of major federal grant programs from the 2008
Guide to U.S. Department of Education Programs that can be used to
prepare general classroom teachers to work with these student
subgroups. For each program, we reviewed what is known about how much
of the funding was used to prepare general classroom teachers,
statutory requirements, and performance goals. Based on this review, we
talked with Education officials from various divisions, including the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), the Office of
English Language Acquisition (OELA), OPE, and the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), to confirm that we had
identified the key programs that can be used to support teacher
preparation for these student subgroups. In addition, we reviewed laws,
regulations, and documents relevant to the 10 Education grant programs
we identified. Due to our focus on Education's key grants and providers
of research and technical assistance, there may be other programs and
Education-supported entities that we did not identify that could be
used to support the preparation and ongoing training of general
classroom teachers for these student subgroups.
To understand how the department provides other assistance to help
prepare teachers for instructing both student subgroups, we interviewed
officials from selected regional and national Education-funded research
and technical assistance providers (see appendices II and III). To
identify relevant research and technical assistance provided by
Education, we identified a list of the key regional and national
providers that receive funding and are overseen by various program
offices departmentwide. We augmented our understanding of these
providers by reviewing information from previous GAO reports;
interviews with experts, state education officials, and school district
officials; and the Web sites of the providers that were most relevant
to our review.
Of the universe of approximately 100 national and regional providers we
initially identified, we selected 15 regional and 11 national providers
to interview, each of which had a major focus on either students with
disabilities or English language learners or both or a major focus on
teacher preparation. In selecting providers for these interviews, we
worked to achieve a balance of providers that focus on each subgroup
and, to the extent possible, providers that either had a focus on
assisting prospective or practicing teachers or both.[Footnote 47] We
also interviewed officials from four types of regional research and
technical assistance providers that receive Education funding: (1)
Regional Comprehensive Centers, (2) Regional Equity Assistance Centers,
(3) Regional Educational Laboratories, and (4) Regional Resource
Centers. From among the regional providers, we interviewed officials
from these entities that served our four selected states for a total of
15 interviews.[Footnote 48] We used a standard set of questions to ask
about the extent to which national and regional providers provide
assistance for prospective and practicing general classroom teachers on
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners,
the types of entities that access this information, and coordination
with other Education-supported providers of research and technical
assistance. We also collected and analyzed relevant documentation, such
as requests for applications and statements of work.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Education-Funded Regional Research and Technical
Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed:
As shown in table 6, we identified four types of regional research and
technical assistance providers--supported by three Education offices--
that can assist states and school districts in preparing general
classroom teachers to instruct either students with disabilities or
English language learners or both student subgroups through a variety
of means. We conducted interviews with officials from each of the 15
Education-funded regional research and technical assistance centers
that serve the four states we visited, comprising four of each type of
center, with one exception. We interviewed only three regional resource
centers, as one regional resource center served two of our selected
states.
Table 6: Selected Regional-Level Research and Technical Assistance
Providers:
Center: Regional Resource Centers (6 centers);
Group served: Students with disabilities;
Education office: OSERS;
Target audience: States;
Resources/assistance offered: Assistance to states in developing and
implementing state improvement plans for students with disabilities.
Center: Regional Comprehensive Centers (16 centers);
Group served: Both;
Education office: OESE;
Target audience: States;
Resources/assistance offered: Assistance to state educational agencies;
leadership programs; and dissemination of research and best practices.
Center: Regional Equity Assistance Centers (10 centers);
Group served: English language learners;
Education office: OESE;
Target audience: States, school districts;
Resources/assistance offered: Professional development; assistance
developing and implementing equity programs; information on legal
issues regarding equity.
Center: Regional Educational Laboratories (10 centers);
Group served: Both;
Education office: Institute of Education Sciences (IES);
Target audience: States, school districts;
Resources/assistance offered: Research on increasing achievement for
students with disabilities and English language learners; expert-led
seminars for educators.
Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation and interviews with
agency officials.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Education-Funded National Research and Technical
Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed:
National-level research and technical assistance providers, supported
by five Education offices, help states, school districts, teachers, and
parents with a variety of topics related to either students with
disabilities or English language learners or both student subgroups. We
conducted interviews with officials from the following Education-funded
national research and technical assistance centers, as shown in table
7.
Table 7: Selected National-Level Research and Technical Assistance
Providers:
Center: National Center on Response to Intervention;
Group served: Both;
Education office: OSERS;
Target audience: States;
Resources/assistance offered: Assistance on development and
implementation of Response to Intervention policies for states; public
access to information about Response to Intervention.
Center: IDEA Partnership;
Group served: Students with disabilities;
Education office: OSERS;
Target audience: School districts, teachers, administrators, teacher
preparation programs;
Resources/assistance offered: Teaching and reference materials;
facilitated dialogue among stakeholders.
Center: National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities;
Group served: Students with disabilities;
Education office: OSERS;
Target audience: National-level assistance centers, schools, teachers,
families;
Resources/assistance offered: Teaching and reference materials;
dissemination of existing materials.
Center: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition;
Group served: English language learners;
Education office: OELA;
Target audience: States;
Resources/assistance offered: Research on increasing achievement for
English language learners; resource guides for teachers.
Center: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching
of English Language Learners;
Group served: English language learners;
Education office: IES;
Target audience: Researchers, administrators, teachers;
Resources/assistance offered: Professional development for practicing
teachers; Internet seminars for educators.
Center: National High School Center;
Group served: Both;
Education office: OESE/OSERS;
Target audience: Regional comprehensive centers;
Resources/assistance offered: Information on high school issues;
Internet seminars.
Center: What Works Clearinghouse;
Group served: Both;
Education office: IES;
Target audience: States, administrators, teachers, parents;
Resources/assistance offered: Practice guides for teachers; assessment
of education research.
Center: Doing What Works;
Group served: Both;
Education office: OPEPD;
Target audience: Teachers;
Resources/assistance offered: Teaching strategies.
Center: IRIS Center for Training Enhancements;
Group served: Both;
Education office: OSERS;
Target audience: Teacher preparation programs, states, school
districts, teachers;
Resources/assistance offered: Online video examples of strategies for
teachers; case studies.
Center: Center on Instruction;
Group served: Both;
Education office: OESE/OSERS;
Target audience:
Regional comprehensive centers; Resources/assistance offered:
Professional development materials; research-based information.
Center: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality;
Group served: Both;
Education office: OESE/OSERS;
Target audience:
Regional comprehensive centers; Resources/assistance offered: Teaching
strategies; research and policy information.
Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation and interviews with
agency officials.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Washington, DC 20202:
[hyperlink, http://www.ed.gov]
"The Department of Education's Mission is promote student achievement
and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational
excellence and ensuring equal access."
June 19, 2009:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
I am writing in response to the recommendation made in the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Teacher Preparation:
Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher Preparation for
Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners,
but Systematic Department-wide Coordination Could Enhance this
Assistance" (GAO-09-573).
This report had one recommendation for the Secretary of Education.
Following is the Department's response.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of Education develop
and implement a department-wide mechanism to ensure more systematic
coordination among Education's offices that oversee grant programs,
research, and technical assistance that can help prospective and
practicing teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English
language learners in the general classroom.
Response: The Department agrees that coordination is beneficial and
will explore the benefits of creating such a mechanism. However, to the
extent that the report suggests the creation of a permanent Department-
wide committee, the Department's experience indicates that creating
intradepartmental committees for the sole purpose of coordinating
agency activities or sharing information across offices is not always
useful. While the Department will review the advisability of forming a
cross-program committee, it would first want to ensure that such a
group would truly lead to improvements in the way the Department and
its grantees implement programs that promote teacher quality.
The Department has effectively brought together individuals from
different offices to work together on discrete issues or problems
related to teacher quality when such action is needed. Good examples
are the coordination that occurred on the implementation of the highly
qualified teacher requirements of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, as amended, and on the development of common performance
measures for teacher professional development programs.
In recent months, the Department has taken additional actions to
coordinate activities in response to new demands and needs. The
Department has initiated a number of coordination efforts to address
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requirements.
One team led by the Secretary's advisors on teacher issues and made up
of representatives from several program offices, focuses on teachers
and school leadership. As the work of that team evolves, it will likely
make more sense to have it look at issues related to the teaching of
students with disabilities and English language learners than to
establish a separate coordination body focused narrowly on that area.
Efforts to coordinate programs, research, and technical assistance
efforts cannot fully eliminate barriers to alignment. Individual
programs and technical assistance efforts have legislative
requirements, and some of these will, inevitably, run counter to one
another. While increased internal coordination may alleviate some
problems, it is unlikely to completely resolve them.
The enclosed document includes the Department's suggested technical
changes to the report.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments on the draft
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Joseph C. Conaty:
Delegated Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
Gale Harris (Assistant Director) and Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-
Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Miriam Hill, Heddi
Nieuwsma, and Melissa Swearingen made significant contributions to this
report in all aspects of the work. Marisa London also made
contributions to the report. Kate van Gelder contributed to writing
this report; Carolyn Boyce, Justin Fisher, Stuart Kaufman, and Shana
Wallace provided key technical support; and Jessica Botsford provided
legal support. Mimi Nguyen and Jeremy Sebest developed the graphics for
the report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Students with disabilities refers to children served under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A child with a
disability means a child evaluated as having mental retardation, a
hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language
impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious
emotional disturbance, an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic
brain injury, another health impairment, a specific learning
disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by
reason thereof, needs special education and related services. The term
"English language learners" is commonly used to refer to students who
have limited English proficiency. The No Child Left Behind Act uses the
term "limited English proficient" in the text of the legislation.
Throughout this report, we will use the term English language learners
to refer to students who are limited English proficient.
[2] NCLBA (Pub. L. No. 107-110), which amended and reauthorized ESEA
(20 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq.), introduced the requirement that states
develop plans that include academic standards and establish performance
goals for making adequate yearly progress that would lead to 100
percent of their students being proficient in reading, mathematics, and
science by 2014. Each school's assessment data must be disaggregated in
order to compare the achievement levels of students within certain
designated groups, which include students with disabilities and English
language learners, with the state's proficiency targets. Each of these
groups generally must make adequate yearly progress in order for the
school to make adequate yearly progress.
[3] See National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public
Agenda, Lessons Learned: New Teachers Talk About Their Jobs, Challenges
and Long-Range Plans - Issue No. 3: Teaching in Changing Times
(Naperville, IL, 2008).
[4] The Higher Education Act was reauthorized and amended by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), Pub. L. No. 110-315, August 14, 2008.
[5] IDEA, Part B requires that students with disabilities ages 3 to 21
years, to the extent possible, be provided instruction in educational
settings in the least restrictive environment, such as mainstream
classrooms.
[6] See M. Planty, W. Hussar, T. Snyder, S. Provasnik, G. Kena, R.
Dinkes, A. KewalRamani, and J. Kemp, The Condition of Education 2008,
NCES 2008-031, a report by the National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education (Washington, D.C., 2008). Special education services through
IDEA are available for eligible children and youth identified by a team
of qualified professionals as having a disability that adversely
affects their academic performance and as in need of special education
and related services.
[7] Data Accountability Center, Table 1-3: Students ages 6 through 21
served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state: Fall 2007,
[hyperlink, https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.htm] (accessed
on Jun. 29, 2009).
[8] Data Accountability Center, Table 1-15: Students ages 6 through 21
served under IDEA, Part B, as a percentage of population, by disability
and state: Fall 2007, [hyperlink,
https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-15.htm] (accessed on Jun. 29,
2009).
[9] The Data Accountability Center receives funding through a
cooperative agreement with Education's Office of Special Education
Programs.
[10] Pub. L. No. 108-446, December 3, 2004.
[11] Each public school child who receives special education and
related services must have an individualized education program (IEP),
which is a written statement specifying, among other components, the
goals and objectives for the student, the services that a student will
receive, the extent to which the student will participate in the
regular education setting with nondisabled peers, and how the student
will participate in statewide assessments.
[12] Data Accountability Center, Table 2-2: Students ages 6 through 21
served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category, educational
environment and state: Fall 2007, [hyperlink,
https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_2-2.xls] (accessed on Apr. 7,
2009).
[13] See Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement,
and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students,
Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III
State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2004-06 (Washington, D.C.,
2008).
[14] See Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement,
and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students,
Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III
State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2004-06.
[15] Alternative routes to certification are gaining in popularity.
According to the most recent available state-reported data submitted to
Education, from 2000 to 2004, the number of individuals who completed
alternative routes to certification programs increased by almost 40
percent. See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary
Education, The Secretary's Fifth Annual Report on Teacher Quality: A
Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom (Washington, D.C., 2006).
[16] Regional educational service centers are state and federally
supported centers disbursed across different geographic regions
designed to improve the educational effectiveness of their member
school systems by sharing services, gathering and disseminating
teaching tools, and providing training to teachers on issues that arise
within their particular school districts.
[17] These states were Alaska, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Virginia, and Wyoming. See U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Postsecondary Education, The Secretary's Fifth Annual Report
on Teacher Quality: A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom.
[18] Formula grant programs are noncompetitive awards based on a
predetermined formula. The eligible recipients for Education's formula
grant programs are state educational agencies that then pass much of
the funding through to local educational agencies. Competitive, or
discretionary, grants are awarded on the basis of a competitive
process. Education reviews applications based on established criteria
to determine which applications best address the program requirements.
[19] The other two subgroups include students who are economically
disadvantaged and students who represent major racial and ethnic
groups.
[20] Schools must show that at least 95 percent of students in each
designated student group participated in these assessments.
[21] 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
[22] 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.
[23] Section 205 of HEA, as added by Section 201 of the HEOA, Pub. L.
No. 110-315 requires annual submission of three types of reports on
teacher preparation and qualifications: (1) a report from institutions
of higher education to states, (2) a report from states to the
Secretary of Education, and (3) a report from the Secretary of
Education to Congress and the public.
[24] Pub. L. No. 107-279.
[25] Pub. L. No. 111-5.
[26] See GAO, Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States
and Localities, Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is
Essential, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-580]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2009).
[27] All estimates based on our sample are subject to sampling error.
We surveyed 374 institutions of higher education that offer teacher
preparation programs and had an 81 percent response rate. Unless
otherwise noted, the margin of error for questions answered by these
institutions is no more than plus or minus 6 percentage points at the
95 percent level of confidence. For more detailed information on this
survey, please see appendix I.
[28] The majority of teacher education institutions in 31 states have
received accreditation from the National Council for the Accreditation
of Teacher Education, and 39 states have adopted or adapted this
entity's standards for approval of their teacher preparation programs.
The six key components include (1) candidate knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions; (2) assessment system and unit evaluation;
(3) field experiences and clinical practices; (4) diversity; (5)
faculty qualifications, performance, and development; and (6) unit
governance and resources. Recognizing changes in the nation's student
population and the need for all teachers to have awareness of these
student subgroups, the National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education revised its standards in 2008 to recommend field
experiences that expose teacher candidates to students with
disabilities and students with linguistic diversity.
[29] Currently, Texas does not specify what topics on students with
disabilities must be covered by teacher preparation programs. However,
one senior official said that a new bill in the Texas House of
Representatives (H.B. 3421) would set specific requirements for
students with disabilities.
[30] As of April 24, 2009, the Texas legislature was considering a bill
that related to requiring teacher preparation programs to provide
coursework on English language learners.
[31] According to state officials, 16 percent of general classroom
teachers in Texas had their endorsement (as of January 2009), 7 percent
of general classroom teachers in Nebraska had their endorsement (as of
August 2008), and 5 percent of general classroom teachers in Georgia
had their endorsement (as of October 2008). Senior officials told us
that California did offer an endorsement prior to requiring teacher
preparation programs to provide coursework and fieldwork on instructing
English language learners. As a result of these requirements, only
veteran teachers and teachers trained outside the state who have not
received instruction on English language learners must get their
endorsement.
[32] States reported that some of these initiatives were funded through
IDEA and ESEA Title II state set-aside funds. State set-aside funds are
a small percentage of these large formula grant programs that are meant
to be used for statewide initiatives, whereas most of the funds from
these programs pass through states to local educational agencies.
[33] The survey data do not specify to what extent the professional
development was provided to general classroom teachers. See U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III--
Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report (Washington, D.C., 2007).
[34] State officials reported that this effort was funded through ESEA
Title II state set-aside funding.
[35] See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation
and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and
Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III--
Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report.
[36] The survey data do not specify to what extent the professional
development was provided to general classroom teachers. See U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III--
Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report.
[37] In each state, we visited two school districts. The districts,
within each state, had large differences in the size of their student
body, with one being classified by us as small and one being classified
as large.
[38] Three of the six offices oversee grant programs, as well as
regional or national research and technical assistance providers. Two
offices oversee regional or national research and technical assistance
providers, but no grant programs. One office oversees a grant program,
but no regional or national research and technical assistance
providers.
[39] In this report, we focus on grant programs that either require or
allow grantees to use some of the funds to help general classroom
teachers instruct students with disabilities and English language
learners.
[40] See GAO, Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education
Programs Could Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-593] (Washington, D.C.:
July 6, 2009).
[41] See GAO, Managing for Results: Building on Agencies' Strategic
Plans to Improve Federal Management, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-29] (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 30, 1997).
[42] See GAO, Results Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005).
[43] Our survey only included alternative routes to certification
administered by institutions of higher education. We did not include
alternative routes to certification offered by other entities, such as
state educational agencies, school districts, regional educational
service centers, and other organizations.
[44] A program completer is an individual who has completed all the
requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program and is
documented as having fulfilled these requirements.
[45] OPE's list does not include state-approved programs from Iowa,
Montana, and Nebraska because these states did not report the number of
program completers annually to OPE in 2007. In addition, these states
did not require teacher candidates to take assessments to earn
certification and thus did not calculate pass rates.
[46] We omitted programs with less than 10 program completers because
OPE does not consistently report pass rates for these programs. In
addition, we did not include programs located in Guam, the Virgin
Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico.
[47] For those centers with a focus on students with disabilities, we
used a secondary criterion to select those that did not specialize in a
particular disability area (e.g., autism) and instead selected centers
that focused more generally on all students with disabilities.
[48] The number of interviews conducted does not total 16 because the
Southeast Regional Resource Center serves as the regional provider for
two of our four selected states: Georgia and Texas.
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
