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. ***