    Teacher Training Programs: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher
    Training, but Information Collected To Assess Accountability Has
    Limitations (09-OCT-02, GAO-03-197T).

    In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to
    enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom by improving
    training programs for prospective teachers and the qualifications
    of current teachers. This testimony focuses on two components of
    the legislation: one that provides grants and another, called the
    "accountability provisions," that requires collecting and
    reporting information on the quality of all teacher training
    programs and qualifications of current teachers. The Subcommittee
    asked that we provide information on (1) activities grantees
    supported and what results are associated with these activities
    and (2) whether the information collected under the
    accountability provisions provides the basis to assess the
    quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of
    current teachers.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-197T
        ACCNO:   A05274
      TITLE:     Teacher Training Programs: Activities Underway to Improve
    Teacher Training, but Information Collected To Assess
    Accountability Has Limitations
         DATE:   10/09/2002
      SUBJECT:   Educational grants
    	     Employment or training programs
    	     Grants to states
    	     Locally administered programs
    	     State-administered programs
    	     Teacher education
    	     California
    	     Connecticut
    	     Georgia
    	     Illinois
    	     Maryland
    	     Massachusetts
    	     North Carolina
    	     Rhode Island
    	     Tennessee
    	     Texas
    	     Wisconsin

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-03-197T

    Testimony Before the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness,
    Committee on Education and the Workforce, U. S. House of Representatives

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 2: 00 p. m. Wednesday, October 9,
    2002 TEACHER TRAINING

    PROGRAMS Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Information
    Collected To Assess Accountability Has Limitations

    Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director Education, Workforce, and Income
    Security Issues

    GAO- 03- 197T

    What GAO Found

    Education has approved or awarded 123 grants to states and partnerships
    totaling over $460 million dollars. Grantees have used funds for
    activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or state,
    but it is too early to determine the grants* effects on the quality of
    teaching in the classroom. While the law allows many activities to be
    funded under broad program goals outlined in the legislation, most
    grantees have focused their efforts on reforming requirements for
    teachers, providing professional development to current teachers, and
    recruiting new teachers. However, within these general areas, grantees*
    efforts vary.

    Early exposure to teaching is a recruitment strategy used by several
    grantees. The information collected as part of the accountability
    provisions to report on the quality of teacher training programs and the
    qualifications of current teachers has limitations. The accountability
    provisions require that all institutions that train teachers who receive
    federal student financial aid provide information to their states on their
    teacher training programs and program graduates. In order to facilitate
    the collection of this information, the HEA required Education to develop
    definitions for terms and uniform reporting methods. Education officials
    told us that they made significant efforts to define these terms so that
    the terms incorporated the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state
    reporting procedures, and data availability. In doing so, Education
    defined some terms broadly. Education officials told us that this gave
    states and institutions discretion to interpret some terms as they wished*
    resulting in the collection and reporting of information that was not
    uniform; making it difficult to assess accountability.

    Our nation*s teachers are inextricably linked to student achievement. This
    bond highlights the importance of teacher preparation programs. The grants
    and accountability provisions established by the HEA seek to improve
    teacher training, but information collected to assess accountability has
    limitations.

    Why GAO Did This Study

    In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to enhance
    the quality of teaching in the classroom by improving training programs
    for prospective teachers and the qualifications of current teachers. This
    testimony focuses on two components of the legislation: one that provides
    grants and another, called the *accountability provisions,* that requires
    collecting and reporting information on the quality of all teacher
    training programs and qualifications of current teachers. The Subcommittee
    asked that we provide information on (1) activities grantees supported and
    what results are associated with these activities and (2) whether the
    information collected under the accountability provisions provides the
    basis to assess the quality of teacher training programs and the
    qualifications of current teachers.

    October 2002 TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS Activities Underway to Improve
    Teacher Training, but Information Collected to Assess Accountability Has
    Limitations Highlights of GAO- 03- 197T, a testimony before the
    Subcommittee on 21 st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and
    the Workforce, U. S. House of Representatives

    The full testimony statement is available at www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/
    getrpt? GAO- 03- 197T. For additional information about this testimony,
    contact Cornelia M. Ashby, (202- 512- 8403).

    United States General Accounting Office G A O Accountability Integrity
    Reliability

    Highlights

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 197T

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity
    to testify on the preparation of teacher candidates and related provisions
    in Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The Department of
    Education*s National Center for Education Statistics recently reported
    that most teacher training programs leave new teachers feeling unprepared
    for the classroom. Because recent research reports that teachers are the
    most important factor in increasing student achievement, the quality of
    teacher training is critical. In 1998, the Congress amended the HEA to
    enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom by improving training
    programs for prospective teachers and the qualifications of current
    teachers. Among other purposes, Title II of the legislation provides
    teacher quality enhancement grants to states or partnerships and, under
    the *accountability provisions,* the legislation requires collecting and
    reporting information on the quality of teacher training programs and the
    qualifications of current teachers.

    Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Ranking Minority Member of the full
    Committee along with the Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education,
    Labor and Pensions, asked us to review some of the Title II provisions. We
    plan on issuing a report in December. Today I will briefly discuss our
    results relating to whether the grants and reporting requirements found in
    Title II of HEA are contributing to improving the quality of teaching in
    the classroom. Specifically, I will discuss (1) Title II grantee
    activities and what results are associated with these activities and (2)
    whether the information collected under the accountability provisions
    provide the basis to assess the quality of teacher training programs and
    the qualifications of current teachers. To learn about grant activities,
    we surveyed 91 grantees, the total at the time of our survey, and
    conducted 33 site visits 1 in 11 states* California, Connecticut, Georgia,
    Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
    Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Grantees in these states were selected
    because they represented almost half of the total grant funding at the
    time, were providing a range of grant activities, and were geographically
    dispersed. We also interviewed Education officials and experts on teaching
    and teacher training. In addition, we reviewed relevant literature,
    regulations, and department documents. We did our work between December
    2001 and

    1 In addition to the site visits, we conducted a brief interview with the
    director of another grant, the Renaissance Partnership for Improving
    Teacher Quality, which consists of 30 institutions of higher education
    located in 10 different states.

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 197T

    October 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards.

    Grantees have used their funds for activities they believe will improve
    teaching in their locality or state. While the law allows many activities
    to be funded under broad program goals outlined in the legislation, most
    grantees have focused their efforts on reforming requirements for
    teachers, providing professional development to current teachers, and
    recruiting new teachers. Within these general areas, grantees* efforts
    vary. However, it is too early to determine the grants* effects on the
    quality of teaching in the classroom.

    The information collected as part of the accountability provisions to
    report on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications
    of current teachers has limitations. The accountability provisions require
    that all institutions that train teachers who receive federal student
    financial aid* not just those receiving teacher quality enhancement
    grants* provide information to their states on their teacher training
    programs and program graduates. In order to facilitate the collection of
    this information, the legislation required Education to develop key
    definitions for terms and uniform reporting methods, including the
    definitions for the consistent reporting of *pass rates.* Education
    officials told us that they made significant efforts to define these terms
    so that the terms incorporated the uniqueness of teacher training
    programs, state reporting procedures, and data availability. In doing so,
    Education defined some terms broadly. Education officials told us that
    this gave states and institutions discretion to interpret some terms as
    they wished* resulting in the collection and reporting of information that
    was not uniform; making it difficult to assess accountability.

    Over $460 million has been approved or awarded for grants under the 1998
    HEA amendments to enhance the quality of teacher training programs and the
    qualifications of current teachers. Three types of grants were made
    available* state, partnership, and recruitment grants. State grants are
    available for states to implement activities to improve teacher quality in
    the state. 2 The legislation requires that states receive a state grant
    only

    2 All 50 states, Washington DC and 8 territories* the Commonwealth of
    Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, the
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall
    Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau*
    are considered states under the HEA. In summary

    Background

    Page 3 GAO- 03- 197T

    once and that the grants must be competitively awarded. Partnership grants
    must include at least three partners* teacher training programs, colleges
    of arts and sciences, and eligible local school districts 3 *to

    receive partnership grants to improve teacher quality through
    collaborative activities. Partnerships may also include other groups, such
    as state educational agencies, businesses and nonprofit educational
    organizations, as partners. Recruitment grants are available to states or
    partnerships for activities, such as scholarships, to help recruit
    teachers.

    In addition to the grants, the 1998 HEA amendments include an annual
    reporting requirement on the quality of teacher training programs and the
    qualifications of current teachers. This component of the legislation,
    called the accountability provisions, requires an annual three- stage
    process to collect and report information in a uniform and comprehensible
    manner. The legislation requires that Education, in consultation with
    states and teacher training institutions, develop definitions and uniform
    reporting methods related to the performance of teacher training programs.
    In the first stage, nearly every institution that prepares teachers* not
    just those receiving teacher quality enhancement grants* is required to
    collect and report specific information to its state, including the pass
    rate of the institution*s *graduates* on state teacher certification
    examinations. Then, in the second stage, states are required to report to
    Education the pass rate information institutions reported in the first
    stage, supplemented with additional statewide information, including a
    description of state certification examinations and the extent to which
    teachers in the state are teaching on waivers* teaching without being
    fully certified. The third and final stage is comprised of a report to the
    Congress from the Secretary of Education on the quality of teacher
    training programs and the qualifications of current teachers. The first
    round of institutional reports were submitted to states in April 2001;
    subsequently, state reports were submitted to Education in October 2001.
    Using this information, the Secretary of Education reported to the
    Congress in June 2002. 4

    3 School district eligibility is limited to those with (1) a high
    percentage of students whose families fall below the poverty line and (2)
    a high percentage of secondary school teachers not teaching in the content
    area in which the teachers were trained to teach, or a high teacher
    turnover rate.

    4 U. S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education,
    Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary*s Annual
    Report on Teacher Quality, June 2002.

    Page 4 GAO- 03- 197T

    How one determines the quality of teacher training programs and the
    qualifications of current teachers has long been debated. The debate is
    currently centered on the best way to train teachers: the traditional
    approach, which typically includes extensive courses in subject matter and
    pedagogy, 5 or alternative training methods that either 1) accelerate the
    process of training teachers by reducing courses in pedagogy or 2) allow
    uncertified teachers to teach while receiving their training at night or
    on weekends. This debate is further complicated because the requirements
    for teacher training programs and current teachers varies by state. Every
    state sets its own requirements for teacher certification, such as which
    certification examination( s) 6 a teacher candidate must take, what score
    is considered passing on this examination, and how many hours teacher
    candidates must spend student teaching* practice teaching during their
    teacher preparation program* in order to become a fully certified teacher
    in that state. In this way a teacher who is fully certified in one state
    may not meet the qualifications for certification in another state. For
    example, in Virginia and Mississippi, teacher candidates are required to
    take the same test to be certified to teach high school mathematics. But
    teacher candidates in Virginia must score 178 (50th percentile of all test
    takers) to pass the examination, whereas in Mississippi candidates must
    score 169 (20th percentile).

    While the 1998 HEA amendments provided grants and established reporting
    requirements to improve the quality of teacher training programs and the
    qualifications of current teachers, it was not until the recent No Child
    Left Behind Act that the Congress defined a highly qualified teacher. 7
    For the purposes of that act, the legislation defines highly qualified
    teachers as those who have demonstrated knowledge or competence in their
    subject matter, hold bachelors degrees, and are fully certified to teach
    in their state. 8

    5 Pedagogy is defined as the study of teaching methods. Courses on
    pedagogy include training on how to best instruct students, but may also
    include course work on classroom management skills* such as how to
    maintain order in the classroom.

    6 Most states require teachers to take multiple state certification
    examinations in order to become certified to teach in certain subject
    areas. 7 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107- 110 sec. 9101
    (23).

    8 Proposed departmental guidance on the definition of highly qualified
    teachers includes participants in an alternative training method who
    function as regular classroom teachers and are making satisfactory
    progress toward full state certification.

    Page 5 GAO- 03- 197T

    Grantees used funds for activities they believe will improve teaching in
    their locality or state, but it is too early to determine the grants*
    effects on the quality of teaching in the classroom. While the law allows
    many activities to be funded, our survey and site visits showed that most
    grantees have focused their efforts on reforming requirements for
    teachers, providing professional development to current teachers, and
    recruiting new teachers. Some positive information about the results of
    these activities has been reported by grantees. For example, recruitment
    grantees have told us that they have been able to recruit more teachers
    into their programs since the inception of the grant program.

    The legislation outlines broad program goals for improving the quality of
    teaching with grant funds, but provides grantees with the flexibility to
    decide the most suitable approach for improving teaching. Grantees focused
    on a combination of activities, and in our survey, we found that 85
    percent of the respondents were using their grant funds to reform the
    requirements for teachers, 85 percent were using their grant funds for
    professional development and support for current teachers, and 72 percent
    were using their grant funds for recruitment efforts. However, within
    these general areas, grantees* efforts varied.

    Most grantees reported using their funds to reform requirements for
    teachers. Since every state sets its own requirements for teacher
    certification, such as how many hours a teacher candidate must spend
    student teaching to become a fully certified teacher in that state, some
    state grantees reported using their funds to reform the certification
    requirements for teachers in their state. Grantees also reported using
    their funds to allow teacher training programs, and colleges of arts and
    sciences to collaborate with local school districts to reform the
    requirements for teacher training programs to ensure that teacher
    candidates are trained appropriately. Some examples of these reforms
    include:

     Requirements for teacher certification. During our site visits we found
    that many state grantees are reforming their state certification
    requirements to ensure that new teachers have the necessary teaching
    skills and knowledge in the subject areas in which they will teach. For
    example, Illinois does not currently have a separate middle school (grades
    5 through 9) certification. Most middle school teachers in Illinois are
    instead certified to teach elementary or high school. However, recognizing
    that this does not adequately address the preparation needs of middle
    school teachers, state officials intend to use the grant to create a new
    certification for middle school teachers. This new certification would
    require middle school teachers to Grantees Used Funds

    for a Range of Activities, but It Is Not Yet Known if These Activities
    Will Affect the Quality of Teaching Grantees Used Funds for a Variety of
    Activities

    Reforming Requirements for Teachers

    Page 6 GAO- 03- 197T

    demonstrate specialized knowledge of how to best instruct adolescents.

     Requirements for teacher training programs. Many teacher training
    programs reported that they were reforming the requirements for teacher
    candidates by revising the required coursework. For example, the grant
    officials from the Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student
    Achievement reported that they wanted to provide teacher candidates with
    exposure to schools earlier than was typical in training programs. To do
    so, they revised their curriculum so that some of their required teacher
    preparation courses were set in public schools, giving teacher candidates
    an opportunity to experience the school environment prior to student
    teaching. Boston College officials expressed that this strategy would
    increase the chances that these teachers would be successful.

    Many grantees reported having high teacher turnover and saw a need for
    providing professional development and other support in order to retain
    current teachers. The primary goal of professional development activities
    is to provide training and support for current teachers with the intention
    of improving their skills and retaining them in the classroom. Grantees
    supported a variety of activities that provided professional development
    and support, such as providing coursework towards an advanced degree and
    assigning mentor teachers to new teachers.

    During our site visits, we found that mentoring was the most common
    professional development activity. Of the 33 grant sites we visited, 23
    grants (70 percent) were conducting mentoring activities. Many of the
    grantees we visited reported that mentoring programs are beneficial to the
    mentor teacher as well as the new teacher. The mentor can coach the new
    teacher on how best to instruct students and adjust to his or her job. In
    return, a mentor teacher may benefit from additional training and
    compensation. Some grantees used their funds to establish a mentor
    training program to ensure that mentors had consistent guidance on ways to
    help new teachers. For example, Rhode Island used its grant funds to allow
    two experienced teachers to tour the state to provide training to future
    mentor teachers and help schools set up mentoring programs. Officials in
    Rhode Island believed this was an effective way to ensure that new
    teachers receive quality support.

    Many grantees reported having a teacher shortage in their area and used
    the grant funds to develop various teacher- recruiting programs. Of the
    grant sites we visited, most grantees were using their funds to fill
    teachers Professional Development and

    Support for Current Teachers Recruiting New Teachers

    Page 7 GAO- 03- 197T

    shortages in urban schools or to recruit new teachers from non-
    traditional sources* mid- career professionals, community college
    students, and middle and high school students.

    The following are examples of grantees using their funds to fill shortages
    in urban areas or to recruit new teachers from non- traditional sources:

     Recruiting for urban school districts. Grantees that were experiencing a
    teacher shortage in their urban schools often provided various incentives
    for teacher candidates to commit to teaching in urban environments. For
    example, *Project SITE SUPPORT* 9 housed at the Johns Hopkins University
    recruits teacher candidates with an undergraduate degree to teach in a
    local school district with a critical need for teachers while, at the same
    time, earning their masters in education. The program offers tuition
    assistance and in some cases, the district pays a full teacher salary. As
    part of the terms of the stipend, teachers are required to continue
    teaching in the local school district for 3 years after completing the
    program. Grant officials told us that this program prepares teacher
    candidates for teaching in an urban environment and makes it more likely
    that they will remain in the profession.

     Recruiting mid- career professionals. Many grantees targeted midcareer
    professionals by offering an accelerated teacher training program. For
    example, the Teacher Recruitment and Induction Project at Southwest Texas
    State University offered scholarships to mid- career professionals to
    offset the cost of classes required for teacher certification. The
    scholarships paid for a 1- year, full- time program that results in a
    teaching certificates and 18 hours of graduate level credits for teacher
    candidates. Grantee officials told us that because the grant covers the
    Austin, Texas area* an area with many technology organizations* they have
    been able to recruit highly skilled individuals who can offer a variety of
    real- life applications to many of the classes they teach.

     Recruiting from community colleges. Some grantees have used their funds
    to recruit teacher candidates at community colleges. For example, National
    Louis University, one of the largest teacher training institutions in
    Illinois, has partnered with six community colleges

    9 The acronym SITE SUPPORT stands for *School Immersion Teacher Education
    and School University Partnership to Prepare Outstanding and Responsive
    Teachers.*

    Page 8 GAO- 03- 197T

    around the state of Illinois so that the community colleges can offer
    training that was not previously available. The grant pays for a
    University faculty member to teach on each of the community college
    campuses. This program allows community colleges in smaller, rural
    communities to provide teacher training without teacher candidates
    incurring the cost of attending National Louis University* a large private
    university. The grant program official told us that school districts in
    these areas will have a greater chance of recruiting new teachers trained
    at one of these community colleges because they were most likely to be
    from that community.

     Recruiting middle and high school students. Other grantees target middle
    and high school students. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School
    District develops programs to attract high school students to the field of
    teaching. The majority of its grant resources has been used to fund a paid
    6- week high school internship for students to work in the classroom with
    a teacher. 10 The high school intern spends most days with a teacher in
    the classroom. The intern*s activities could include helping the teacher
    correct papers and plan activities. Once a week, interns have a class with
    a grant- funded teacher on curriculum and lesson planning. The grant
    official told us that the internship introduces younger people to teaching
    as a profession and, therefore, may increase the chances that they will
    become teachers in the future.

    10 The Los Angeles Unified School District operates on a year- round
    basis, with staggered vacation schedules for students. Internships occur
    during scheduled student vacations, allowing some students to participate
    as interns during their vacation in other schools that are in session.

    Page 9 GAO- 03- 197T

    Figure 1: Recruitment Efforts to Attract Young People to the Field of
    Teaching.

    Note: Early exposure to the classroom is a recruitment strategy used by
    several grantees to introduce teaching as a profession.

    Source: Archives from the U. S. Department of Education.

    While grantees are using their funds on a number of activities, it is too
    early to know whether these activities will affect the quality of teaching
    in the classroom. Based on our survey, grantees reported that some of the
    activities are having positive effects and that their grant allowed them
    to support activities that would not have been possible without grant
    funds. For example, some grantees have been able to report on the number
    of teacher candidates served through their grant programs. Many grantees
    also reported that the partnerships and alliances formed through the grant
    program have had and will continue to have positive effects on their
    ability to address the quality of teaching in the classroom.

    While the reported positive activities are encouraging, it is too early to
    know how or if they will translate into high quality teaching in the
    classroom. Many grantees we visited have not collected the types of data,
    such as student achievement scores, needed to show the impact of these
    activities on student learning. Those that have attempted to collect these
    data needed to judge results are not yet in a position to report their
    findings because these types of data require time to collect, and the
    grant program is relatively new. Because these activities address the
    quality of teaching, it will take time to see the effects on student
    achievement. It Is Too Early to

    Determine Grants* Effect on the Quality of Teaching in the Classroom

    Page 10 GAO- 03- 197T

    The information collected as part of the accountability provisions to
    report on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications
    of current teachers has limitations. The accountability provisions require
    that all institutions that train teachers who receive federal student
    financial aid* not just those receiving grants* provide information to
    their states on their teacher training programs and program graduates. 11
    In order to facilitate the collection of this information, the legislation
    required Education to develop key definitions for terms and uniform
    reporting methods, including the definitions for the consistent reporting
    of pass rates. Education officials told us that they made significant
    efforts to define these terms so that the terms incorporated the
    uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures, and
    data availability. In doing so, Education defined some terms broadly.
    Education officials told us that this gave states and institutions
    discretion to interpret some terms as they wished* resulting in the
    collection and reporting of information that was not uniform; making it
    difficult to assess accountability.

    The accountability provisions required states and institutions to report
    information, such as the percentage of an institution*s graduates who pass
    the state certification examination, also known as the pass rate. In order
    to gather information on the pass rate, Education first needed to define
    graduate. Education officials told us that in many teacher training
    programs, candidates do not graduate with a degree in teacher training,
    but rather receive a certificate. Therefore Education did not define
    graduate but rather created the term *program completer* to encompass all
    teacher training candidates. The table below explains our analysis of the
    information the legislation required to be collected, the way that
    Education defined selected terms to collect the information, and the
    reporting implications of Education*s definitions.

    11 Institutions are required to report to their states on the following:
    (1) pass rates, (2) program information* number of students in the
    program, average number of hours of supervised practice teaching required
    for those in the program, and the faculty- student ratio in supervised
    practice teaching, and (3) a statement of whether the institution*s
    program is accredited by the state. Information Collected

    to Assess the Quality of Teacher Training Programs and the Qualifications
    of Teachers has Limitations

    Page 11 GAO- 03- 197T

    Definitions for Collection of Accountability Provision Information Term
    Legislative Requirements Education*s Definition Reporting Implications

    Graduate To identify the percentage of all graduates at a teacher training
    institution who successfully passed the state certification examination(
    s).

    Education did not define the term graduate, but rather used the term
    *program completer* and defined it as someone who has met the requirements
    of a state approved teacher- training program.

    Some institutions only reported candidates who completed all course work
    and passed the state certification examination. In calculating the pass
    rate, these institutions did not include those students who passed the
    course work but failed the examination. As a result institutions reported
    a 100% pass rate, which is not informative to the Congress or the public
    on the quality of the teacher training programs at those institutions.
    Waiver To identify the number of

    teachers who are teaching without state certification, including those on
    temporary or emergency permits, those pursuing an alternative route to
    certification or those teaching as long- term substitutes.

    Any temporary or emergency permit, license or other authorization that
    permits an individual to teach in a public school classroom without having
    received an initial certificate or license (as defined by the state) from
    that state or any other state.

    Some states defined an initial certificate or license so broadly that it
    allowed them to report few or no teachers as teaching on waivers.

    Alternative route to certification or licensure

    To identify a route to certification that is not a regular teacher
    training program.

    As defined by the state. Some states defined alternative route so
    narrowly, which allowed them to report that few teachers had taken an
    alternative route to certification.

    Source: GAO Analysis of legislation, Department regulations, and state
    Title II reports.

    Thus, using definitions provided by Education, states and institutions
    could report information that made their programs seem more successful
    than they might have been. Institutions could inflate their pass rate by
    reporting only on those teacher candidates who completed all coursework
    and passed the state teacher certification examination without including
    any information on teacher candidates who completed all coursework but
    failed the examination* thus ensuring a 100- percent pass rate. During our
    review, we found that a few states and many institutions are inflating
    their pass rates to 100- percent. For instance, we found that in at least
    three state reports to Education, every institution reported 100- percent
    pass rates. Those institutions included in their calculations only those
    teacher candidates they determined to be program completers* those who
    passed the state certification examination and met the state*s other
    requirements* excluding those who failed the examination. While requiring
    teacher candidates to pass the state certification examination as part of
    a teacher training program is not, in and of itself a problem, reporting
    on only those candidates who pass the test does not provide the

    Page 12 GAO- 03- 197T

    basis to assess the quality of teacher training programs and the
    qualifications of current teachers.

    In other instances, Education allowed states to define some terms from the
    legislation in a way that was applicable to their state because of the
    variability in how states defined and collected information on some terms.
    This allowed states to define some terms so that they could cast the
    quality of their teacher training programs and the qualifications of their
    current teachers in the most positive light. For example, the
    accountability provisions required that states report on the number of
    teachers on waivers. Because Education allowed each state to define
    initial certificate or license for itself, each state reported different
    information in its waiver count. Figure 2 presents information from three
    neighboring states* Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D. C.* with
    different definitions of certification leading to variations in who was
    included in their waiver count. The degree of this variation from state to
    state is unknown. Thus, the data collected for the Congress does not
    present an accurate account of teachers who are not fully certified.

    Figure 2: Criteria for Waiver Calculations Varies among Three Neighboring
    States

    Source: GAO Analysis of School Year 2000 State Title II Reports

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, our nation*s teachers are inextricably linked to
    student achievement. This bond highlights the importance of teacher
    preparation programs. During our review, we saw many examples of how grant
    funds are being used to either recruit and prepare new teachers, or

    Page 13 GAO- 03- 197T

    develop and retain current teachers. However, due to the lack of clearly
    defined terms by the Department, the information Education collected and
    reported to the Congress under the accountability provisions does not
    portray the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of
    current teachers. At the request of the full Committee and the Senate
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, we will continue our
    study of these issues and issue a report in December.

    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to
    any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.

    For further information, please contact Cornelia M. Ashby at (202)
    5128403. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include
    Kelsey Bright, Sonya Harmeyer, Tamara Harris, and Anjali Tekchandani.
    Contacts and

    Acknowledgments

    (130207)
    *** End of document. ***