Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher	 
Training, but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced	 
(11-DEC-02, GAO-03-6).						 
                                                                 
In 1998, 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 report 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.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-6						        
    ACCNO:   A05712						        
  TITLE:     Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher 
Training, but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced	 
     DATE:   12/11/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational grants 				 
	     Employment or training programs			 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Teacher education					 
	     Grant monitoring					 

******************************************************************
** 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-03-6

Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

December 2002 HIGHER EDUCATION Activities Underway to Improve Teacher
Training, but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced

GAO- 03- 6

The Department of Education has approved or awarded 123 grants to states
and partnerships totaling over $460 million. Education awarded grants to
applicants according to the legislation, but failed to maintain an
effective system for communicating with grantees. Grantees have used funds
for activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or
state. While HEA 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. The extent
to which these activities will affect the quality of teaching in the
classroom will be difficult to determine because Education does not have a
systematic approach to evaluate all grant activities.

Early Exposure to Teaching is a Recruitment Strategy Used by Several
Grantees.

Source: Department of Education archives.

The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did not
allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher training
programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each state. The
accountability provisions require all institutions that enroll students
who receive federal student financial assistance and train teachers to
provide information to their states on their teacher training programs and
program graduates. In order to facilitate the collection of this
information, HEA required Education to develop definitions for terms and
uniform reporting methods. Education officials told GAO that they made
significant efforts to define these terms so that the terms reflected the
uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures, and
data availability. In doing so, Education defined some terms broadly. The
officials also told GAO 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 and thereby making it
difficult to assess accountability.

HIGHER EDUCATION

Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Reporting on These
Activities Could Be Enhanced

http:// www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 6 To view the full
report, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For
more information, contact Cornelia M. Ashby (202- 512- 8403). Highlights
of GAO- 03- 6, a report to the

Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United
States Senate, and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Education and the
Workforce, House of Representatives

December 2002

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
report 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.

In order to effectively manage the grant program, GAO recommends that the
Secretary of Education

further develop and maintain a system for regularly communicating program
information with grantees and

establish a systematic approach for evaluating all grant activities.

To improve the information collected under the accountability provisions,
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education

define key terms from the legislation clearly and

allow sufficient time for the verification of the required information.

GAO*s report also includes a matter for consideration by the Congress.

In commenting on a draft of GAO*s report, Education generally agreed with
the findings.

Page i GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 Background 5 Education Awarded Grants in Accordance
with Legislative

Requirements, but Failed to Maintain an Effective System for Communicating
with Grantees 9 Grantees Used Funds for a Range of Activities, but Their

Effectiveness Will Be Difficult to Determine 15 The Extent to Which Grant
Activities Will Affect the Quality of

Teaching in the Classroom Will Be Difficult to Determine 21 Information
Collected and Reported for the Accountability

Provisions Does Not Accurately Portray the Quality of Teacher Training
Programs And the Qualifications of Teachers 24 Conclusions 28
Recommendations 29 Matter for Congressional Consideration 29 Agency
Comments 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher Education
Act and the No Child Left Behind Act 33

Appendix III Summary Information on Grant Activities 36

Appendix IV Accountability Provision Description 41

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Education 44

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 47 Contacts 47
Acknowledgments 47 Contents

Page i GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality Tables

Table 1: Grant Type, Funding Amounts, and Activities of Grantees We
Visited 16 Table 2: Legislative Requirements for Annual Reports 23 Table
3: Selected Definitions for the Collection of Accountability

Provision Information 25

Figures

Figure 1: Diagram of an Eligible Partnership 6 Figure 2: Allocation of
Grant Funds Available by Legislation 7 Figure 3: Grant Applications
Reviewed and Awarded the First Year

of Grant Funding* 1999 11 Figure 4: Range of Funding for Grants by Grant
Type 12 Figure 5: States That Have Not Yet Received a State Grant 13
Figure 6: Early Exposure to Teaching is a Recruitment Strategy

Used by Several Grantees 21 Figure 7: Criteria for Waiver Calculations
Varies among Three

Neighboring States 27

Abbreviations

HEA Higher Education Act SITE SUPPORT School Immersion Teacher Education
and School

University Partnership to Prepare Outstanding and Responsive Teachers

Page 1 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

December 11, 2002 The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Chairman Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate

The Honorable George Miller Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education
and the Workforce House of Representatives

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 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 legislation is scheduled for
reauthorization in 2003.

This report 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 teacher
training programs and qualifications of current teachers. The grants are
given on a competitive basis to states or partnerships between higher
education institutions and local school districts to fund activities that
recruit and prepare new teachers, and develop and retain current teachers.
Since 1998, Education has awarded or approved 123 grants to states 1 and
partnerships totaling over $460 million. The accountability provisions
require all institutions that enroll students who receive federal student
financial assistance and train teachers to provide information to their
states on their teacher training programs and program graduates. States
are required to consolidate some of this information into a report,

1 All 50 states, Washington D. C. and eight territories* the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States 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 for the purposes of HEA.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

supplement it with additional statewide education data, and submit it to
Education. Using this information, Education is required to report
annually to the Congress on the nationwide quality of teacher training
programs and the qualifications of current teachers.

To prepare for the reauthorization of this legislation, the Congress wants
to know whether the grants and reporting requirements are contributing to
improving the quality of teaching in the classroom. This report addresses
the following issues:

 how Education awarded grants and administered the grant program;  what
activities grantees funded and what results can be associated with

these activities; and  whether the information collected under the
accountability provisions

allows for an accurate report on the quality of teacher training programs
and the qualifications of current teachers.

In October 2002, we reported our preliminary results to the Subcommittee
on 21st Century Competitiveness, House Committee on Education and the
Workforce. 2

To learn about the implementation of this legislation, we surveyed 91
grantees, the total at the time of our survey, and conducted 33 site
visits 3 in 11 states* California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, 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 of our site
visits, 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 conducted
our work between December 2001 and November 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted

2 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Teacher Training Programs:
Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Information Collected
To Assess Accountability Has Limitations GAO- 03- 197T (Washington, D. C.:
October 9, 2002).

3 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 3 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

government auditing standards. For details on our scope and methodology,
see appendix I.

The Department of Education awarded grants to applicants in accordance
with legislative requirements, but the new office set up to administer the
grant program failed to maintain an effective system for communicating
with grantees. The legislation outlined certain program requirements,
including that states may receive a state grant only once, grant selection
must be competitive, 45 percent of total grant funding be available for
state grants, and that Education shall broadly disseminate information on
successful and unsuccessful practices. However, the implementation of the
grant program was left to Education. The department established the
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office to determine the procedures by
which the grants were to be awarded and administered. To ensure that the
grants were awarded competitively, the office developed grant
applications, advertised the grant opportunity to potential applicants,
provided technical assistance to applicants, and convened panels to judge
the applications. Once the grants were awarded, the office was charged
with administering the grant program and, to do so, it developed some
operating procedures for the program, such as the annual reporting
mechanisms. However, we found that Education failed to maintain an
effective system for communicating with grantees about reporting deadlines
and successful and unsuccessful practices. Furthermore, 45 of 59 eligible
states have already been approved for or awarded state grants, and because
the authorizing legislation specifically requires that these grants can
only be awarded once, only 14 states will be eligible to receive future
state grants under the current authorizing legislation. Given this, and
because the legislation requires that 45 percent of total grant funding be
available for state grants, it is possible that some funding the Congress
appropriates for teacher quality enhancement grants will remain unspent.

Grantees are using the flexibility the grant program allows to support
activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or state,
but the extent to which these activities will affect the quality of
teaching in the classroom will be difficult to determine. While the
legislation allows many activities to be funded, 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 varied. For
example, to address teacher shortages, the Los Angeles Unified School
District targeted high school students and developed a program to attract
young people to the field of teaching; whereas Southwest Texas State
University, another grantee addressing teacher shortages, offered
scholarships to mid- career Results in Brief

Page 4 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

professionals. The extent to which these activities will affect the
quality of teaching in the classroom will be difficult to determine
because Education does not have a systematic approach to evaluate all
grant activities.

The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did not
allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher training
programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each state. The
accountability provisions require all institutions that enroll students
who receive federal student financial assistance and train teachers* not
just those institutions receiving teacher quality enhancement grants* to
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 definitions for
key terms and uniform reporting methods, including the definitions for the
consistent reporting of *pass rates** the percentage of all graduates of a
teacher training program who pass the state teacher certification
examinations. Education officials told us that they made significant
efforts to define these terms so that the terms reflected 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 and thereby making it
difficult to assess accountability. In addition, time spent verifying the
information from states and institutions was limited, which contributed to
the inclusion of inaccurate information in Education*s report to the
Congress.

In this report, we make recommendations to the Secretary of Education to
further develop and maintain an effective system for communicating with
grantees and to evaluate all grant activities. To improve the information
collected as part of the accountability provisions, we also recommend that
the Secretary provide clear definitions of terms associated with the
collection of required information and allow sufficient time for
verification of information collected. Additionally, if the Congress
decides to fund these grants as part of the reauthorization of HEA, it may
want to clarify whether all 59 states will be eligible for future state
grant funding or whether eligibility would be limited to only those states
that have not previously received a state grant.

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Education
generally agreed with the reported findings. Education did state, however,
that our report does not acknowledge the change of administration in 2001
and that it should identify the changes implemented

Page 5 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

by the current administration to address deficiencies. While our work
covered questions and found problems with implementation under the current
and prior administrations, a comparison of management under the two
administrations is not within the scope of our work. Education also
provided technical comments, which were incorporated when appropriate.

Over $460 million has been awarded or approved in grants under the 1998
HEA amendments to enhance the quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications of current teachers. The legislation requires that states
may receive a state grant only once and that the grants must be
competitively awarded. Three types of grants were made available:

(1) State grants are available for states to implement activities to
improve teacher quality in their states.

(2) Partnership grants are available to eligible partners to improve
teacher quality through collaborative activities. Eligible partnerships
must include at least three partners* teacher training programs, colleges
of Arts and Sciences, and eligible local school districts. 4 Partnerships
may also include other groups, such as state educational agencies,
businesses and nonprofit educational organizations as partners (see fig.
1).

(3) Recruitment grants are available to states or partnerships to use
their funding for activities to help recruit teachers.

4 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. Background

Page 6 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Figure 1: Diagram of an Eligible Partnership

Because the legislation sets out broad program goals for which grant funds
can be used* such as reforming state teacher certification requirements
and recruiting new teachers* it allows grantees to support activities
under these program goals they believe will improve teaching in their
locality or state. The grants are flexible enough to allow grantees to use
the funding for a wide range of activities aimed at improving the quality
of teaching in the classroom. For example, grantees are allowed to provide
scholarships and stipends as a recruitment effort for teacher candidates
as well as provide laptop computers to new teachers in order to integrate
technology into the classroom. Figure 2 shows the funding allocation
provided by the legislation for the three types of grants.

College of Arts and Sciences Local school district Business Nonprofit
educational organization

Optional partners Required partners Teacher preparation program

State educational agency Source: GAO's analysis of HEA.

Page 7 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Figure 2: Allocation of Grant Funds Available by Legislation

The legislation requires monitoring and evaluation of activities supported
by these grants. Each grantee is required to submit an annual report to
Education on its progress toward meeting program goals specified in the
legislation, which must include performance objectives and measures to
determine if grant activities were successful. The legislation also
required Education to evaluate all grant activities and to broadly
disseminate information about successful and unsuccessful practices.

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 reporting requirements under the accountability provisions
mandated, for the first time, that colleges and universities who train
teachers be held accountable for how well they prepared teachers. The
legislation requires that Education, in consultation with states and
teacher training institutions, develop definitions for key terms*
including definitions for the consistent reporting of pass rates* and
uniform reporting methods related to the performance of teacher training
programs. Education officials told us that they made significant efforts
to define key terms so that the terms reflected the uniqueness of teacher
training programs, state reporting procedures, and data availability.

States

45% * 10% 

Partnerships Recruitment (states and partnerships)

45% 

Source: Higher Education Act.

Page 8 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

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 allowed to teach 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. 5

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, 6 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 quality of
teacher training programs and the qualifications for current teachers
varies by state. Every state sets its own requirements for teacher
certification, such as which certification examination( s) 7 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

5 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.

6 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.

7 Most states require teachers to take multiple state certification
examinations in order to become certified to teach in certain subject
areas.

Page 9 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

for certification in another state. For example, in Virginia, Minnesota
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 Minnesota and Mississippi teacher candidates must
score 169 (20th percentile of all test takers).

While the 1998 HEA amendments provided grants and reporting requirements
to improve the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications
of teachers, it was not until the recent No Child Left Behind Act that the
Congress defined a highly qualified teacher. 8 For the purposes of that
act, the legislation defines highly qualified teachers as those who
demonstrate competence in each subject they teach, hold bachelors degrees,
and are fully certified to teach in their state. See appendix II for more
information on HEA and the No Child Left Behind Act.

Education awarded grants to applicants according to the legislation but
failed to maintain an effective system for communicating with grantees.
The legislation outlined certain program requirements, such as the
requirement that states may receive a state grant only once, that 45
percent of total grant funding be available for state grants, and that
Education shall broadly disseminate information on successful and
unsuccessful practices. However, it left the implementation of the grant
program to Education. The department established the Teacher Quality
Enhancement Grant Office to determine the procedures by which the grants
were to be awarded and administered. Once the grants were awarded, the
office was charged with administering the grant program and, to do so, it
developed some operating procedures for the program. However, Education
failed to maintain an effective system for communicating with grantees
about reporting deadlines and successful and unsuccessful practices.

Soon after the legislation was passed in 1998, Education created a new
office, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office, that set the grant
program in motion by developing applications, advertising the grant
opportunities, and convening technical review sessions for potential

8 Section 9101( 23) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107- 110.
Education Awarded

Grants in Accordance with Legislative Requirements, but Failed to Maintain
an Effective System for Communicating with Grantees

New Office Awarded Grants According to the Legislation

Page 10 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

applicants. When the office was first established, it conducted focus
groups with representatives from different areas* states, local school
districts, institutions that train teachers, and community groups* to
decide how to implement the legislation. Education officials used this
input to develop applications for the state, partnership, and recruitment
grants. Education officials advertised the grants and provided
opportunities for potential applicants to receive technical assistance on
the application procedures. These technical assistance sessions, which
grantees told us were helpful, were offered across the country and allowed
Education officials to answer questions and explain the criteria by which
applications would be judged.

In accordance with the legislation, the office provided funding to state
agencies and partnerships between higher education institutions and local
school districts with three types of grants* state, partnership, and
recruitment* through a competitive process. The legislation required
Education to use peer reviewers to determine which applicants would
receive grant funding. The office convened panels of peer reviewers to
judge the applications. Each peer review panel consisted of
representatives from local school districts, states, community groups,
teacher training programs, and colleges of Arts and Sciences. In 1999, the
first year grants were available, the peer review panel reviewed 371
applications: 41 for state grants, 222 for partnership grants, and 108 for
recruitment grants. Of these applications, the office awarded 24 state
grants, 25 partnership grants, and 28 recruitment grants (see fig. 3).
Since then an additional 21 state, 8 partnership, and 17 recruitment
grants have been awarded or approved using the same process. 9 Between
1999 and 2002, the office awarded or approved a total of 123 grants. 10

9 Education funded a total of 45 state grants, 33 partnership grants, and
45 recruitment grants. 10 Alabama State University was awarded a
recruitment grant in 1999 but refused funding after the first year,
leaving a total of 122 grants.

Page 11 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Figure 3: Grant Applications Reviewed and Awarded the First Year of Grant
Funding* 1999

Grant duration and funding amount vary depending on the type of grant.
According to the legislation, grants can be awarded to states and
partnerships only once, though the funding is dispersed over several
years. 11 State and recruitment grantees receive funding for three years,
whereas partnership grantees receive funding for up to five years.

State grants ranged from just over $500,000 awarded to Idaho to $13.5
million awarded to Virginia. Partnership grant awards ranged from $1.2
million awarded to Graceland University in Iowa to over $13.2 million
awarded to Arizona State University. Recruitment grants ranged from
$523,890 awarded to Norfolk State University to $1.4 million awarded to
the San Diego University Foundation (see fig. 4). When we divided total

11 Some entities could become eligible for another partnership or
recruitment grant by changing the makeup of the partnering group. For
example, a college that is part of a current partnership grant could
partner with other entities to form a new partnership and become eligible
for another partnership or recruitment grant.

Grants 0 50

100 150

200 250

300 State Partnership Recruitment

Grant applications reviewed Grant applications awarded Source: U. S.
Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office.

Page 12 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

grant awards by the duration of the grants, the average annual award for
state grants ($ 1.6 million) was larger than the average annual award for
partnership grants ($ 1.2 million), and the average annual award for
recruitment grants ($ 340,054) was the smallest.

Figure 4: Range of Funding for Grants by Grant Type

Forty- five of 59 eligible states have already been approved for or
awarded state grants, and because the legislation specifically requires
that these grants can only be awarded once, only 14 states will be
eligible to receive future state grants under the current authorizing
legislation (see fig. 5). Given this, and because the legislation requires
that 45 percent of total grant funding be available for state grants, it
is possible that some funding the Congress appropriates for teacher
quality enhancement grants will remain unspent.

Dollars in millions State Partnership Recruitment

544,741 13.5

1.2 13.2

523,890 1.4

0 2

4 6

8 10

12 14

Source: U. S. Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
Office.

Page 13 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Figure 5: States That Have Not Yet Received a State Grant The Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico

U. S. Virgin Islands The Federated States of Micronesia The Republic of
Palau

United States AK

Northern Mariana Islands American

Samoa Guam

The Republic of Marshall Islands Eligible territories

Note: Unshaded 14 states have not received a Teacher Quality Enhancement
State Grant. The District of Columbia and eight territories are considered
states for the purposes of HEA.

NH DE NY

MN MT

AZ IA

HI (Not shaded)

(Shaded) (Not shaded) Source: GAO analysis of Education's documents.

Page 14 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Grantees reported that Education failed to maintain an effective system
for communicating with them about reporting deadlines and successful and
unsuccessful practices. Communication from Education to the grantees,
specifically the frequency and accuracy of Education*s efforts, was
problematic. Education officials and grantees reported that in the
beginning of the grant program, staff assigned to assist grantees
communicated with them regularly, informing them of reporting deadlines
and answering specific questions related to the grant program. However,
the office experienced several disruptions in staff and management, and
grantees told us that this level of communication with Education was not
maintained. Since the grant program began 4 years ago, the Teacher Quality
Enhancement Grant Office has had five different managers, and staff in the
office has fallen from nine to two. Several officials at Education told us
that the constant changes in the office led to a lack of program
continuity, which affected the communication with grantees. Almost 75
percent of the grantees reported that the management and staff turnover at
Education had been a problem.

In addition, grantees reported that some information received from
Education was inaccurate, which led to additional work for the grantees
when they were eventually informed of the right information. For example,
grantees needed to be informed of what information to include in their
required annual report and when to submit it to Education. Many grantees
we visited told us that because Education failed to maintain an effective
system of communicating this information, they were given incorrect
information on what data to include in their annual reports, making it
necessary for the grantee to collect and analyze data twice.

Further, the legislation requires Education to broadly disseminate
information about successful and unsuccessful practices, but we found that
Education did not adequately carry out this requirement. Grantees told us
that having access to information about successful and unsuccessful
practices would save them time and money in administering their grants.
Although a national conference of grantees has been held each year since
the grants began and some grantees have been able to participate in a few
multigrantee telephone conference calls, grantees reported that these
efforts did not adequately allow them to share ideas on successful and
unsuccessful practices. For example, some grantees told us that requiring
teacher candidates to attend classes on the weekends was an unsuccessful
strategy, because few candidates could attend at that time. However,
because Education did not broadly disseminate this information, several
grantees told us that they wasted time and money Education Failed to

Maintain an Effective System for Communicating with Grantees

Page 15 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

learning this on their own by offering Saturday courses only to have them
sparsely attended.

Grantees are using the flexibility the grant program allows to support
activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or state,
but no system is in place to determine if these activities will affect the
quality of teaching in the classroom. While the legislation allows many
activities to be funded under broad program goals outlined in HEA, most
grantees have focused their efforts on reforming requirements for
teachers, providing professional development to current teachers, and
recruiting new teachers. The extent to which these activities will affect
the quality of teaching in the classroom will be difficult to determine
because Education does not have a systematic approach to evaluate all
grant activities.

The legislation outlines broad program goals for improving the quality of
teaching with grant funds but provides grantees with the flexibility in
deciding the most suitable approach for improving teaching. Our survey and
site visits showed that most grantees focused on three types of
activities: (1) reforming requirements for teachers, (2) providing
professional development and support for current teachers, and (3)
recruiting new teachers. Grantees could focus on only one activity, but
all grantees responding to our survey focused on a combination of
activities. In our survey, we found that 85 percent of the respondents
were using their grant funds to reform the requirements for teachers, 85
percent of the respondents were using their grant funds for professional
development and support for current teachers, and 72 percent of the
respondents were using their grant funds for recruitment efforts. Table 1
shows the activities grantees we visited told us they provided. Grantees
Used Funds

for a Range of Activities, but Their Effectiveness Will Be Difficult to
Determine

Grantees Used Funds for a Variety of Activities

Page 16 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Table 1: Grant Type, Funding Amounts, and Activities of Grantees We
Visited Grant awarded to Amount funded

Reforming requirements

for teachers Providing

professional development Recruiting new

teachers State grants

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing $10,588,598 X X Connecticut
State Department of Education $1,764,447 X XX Georgia Board of Regents
$9,949,480 X X Illinois Board of Higher Education $4,068,086 X Maryland
State Department of Education $5,632,049 X X Massachusetts Department of
Education $3,524,149 X X North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
$8,379,462 X XX Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education $3,358,502 X X Tennessee Department of Education $1,745,465 X X
Texas State Board for Teacher Certification $10,751,154 X X Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction $3,283,720 X X

Partnership grants

Northern California Partnership Grant (California State University-
Sacramento) $1,277,426 X X The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program
(GSTEP) (University of Georgia) $6,492,635 X X Illinois Teacher Education
Partnership (National Louis University) $6,308,245 X X Illinois
Professional Learners* Partnership (Illinois State University) $12,611,607
X X Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality (Western
Kentucky University) $5,711,847 X X Project SITE SUPPORT (The Johns
Hopkins University) $12,660,901 X X X Project Learning in Communities
(LINC) (University System of Maryland) $4,187,912 X X Massachusetts
Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement (Boston College)
$7,168,926 X X X Teaching Matters, Quality Counts (North Carolina Central
University) $3,781,980 X X X Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able
Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT) (University of
Tennessee- Chattanooga) $3,270,959 X X Project Collaboration, Mentoring
and Technology (CoMeT) (Our Lady of the Lake University) $5,604,478 X X
Institute for School- University Partnerships (Texas A& M University)
$11,623,979 X X X

Page 17 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Grant awarded to Amount funded Reforming

requirements for teachers

Providing professional development Recruiting new

teachers

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee $8,456,364 X X X

Recruitment grants

Los Angeles Unified School District $956,261 X Oakland Unified School
District $1,026,168 X X San Diego State University Foundation $1,412,828 X
University of California* Los Angeles (University of California Regents
Office) $1,213,295 X X Connecticut State Department of Education $938,428
X Teacher Recruitment Initiative in Tennessee (TRI- IT!) (University of
Tennessee- Chattanooga) $1,193,297 X X Teacher Recruitment and Induction
Project (TRIP) (Southwest Texas State University) $1,051,241 X X Milwaukee
Public Schools $844,357 X X

Note: Shading is used to show how the grants differ. Source: GAO*s
analysis of grant activities from site visits and documents from the U. S.
Department of Education.

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 the following:

 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 Reforming Requirements for

Teachers

Page 18 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

demonstrate specialized knowledge on how to best instruct adolescents. 
Requirements for teacher training programs* To improve the quality of

teachers, states reported reforming their requirements for teacher
training programs. For example, Wisconsin used some of its grant funds to
develop a strategy to hold institutions accountable for the quality of the
preparation they provide their teacher candidates. This strategy ensured
that teacher candidates in every teacher training program receive
instruction that prepares them to meet state standards. 12 To begin this
effort, the state developed a handbook of standards, procedures, and
policies for teacher training programs. In addition, the state plans to
enforce these requirements by conducting a thorough review of each teacher
training program. Wisconsin and other states we visited are also ensuring
that training provided through alternative routes* routes to certification
that are not provided by regular teacher training programs* are meeting
similar requirements.

 Requirements for teacher candidates* 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. Grant officials expressed that this strategy would increase the
chances that these teachers would be successful because the teachers would
be better prepared for the realities of the classroom.

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
used their funds for 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.

12 Wisconsin has 10 standards, such as demonstration of technological
knowledge, that teachers must meet to be certified. Providing Professional

Development and Support for Current Teachers

Page 19 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

During our site visits, we found that mentoring was the most common
professional development activity. Of the 33 grant sites we visited, 23
grants were providing 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 to best 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. 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, many grantees were using their funds to fill
teacher shortages in urban schools or to recruit new teachers from
nontraditional sources* mid- career professionals, community college
students, and middle and high school students.

The following are examples of grantees using their funds to fill shortages
in urban areas or to recruit new teachers from nontraditional 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* 13 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 prepared teacher
candidates for teaching in an urban environment and makes it more likely
that they will remain in the profession.

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

Page 20 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

 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
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 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. A 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. 14 The high school intern spends most days with a teacher in
the classroom (see fig. 6). 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

14 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 21 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

introduces younger people to teaching as a profession and, therefore, may
increase the chances that they will become teachers in the future.

Figure 6: Early Exposure to Teaching is a Recruitment Strategy Used by
Several Grantees

Source: Departme6nt of Education archives.

The extent to which grant activities will affect the quality of teaching
in the classroom will be difficult to determine. Although the legislation
mandates that Education evaluate all grant activities, we found that
Education does not have a systematic approach to do so. Education does
have one study underway to evaluate some grant activities; however, this
study is limited to only one type of grant* partnership grants. In
addition, grantees told us that they were given little guidance from
Education on what types of information to collect in order to determine
the effects of their grant activities. Even though Education has not
determined the extent to which these activities affect the quality of
teaching in the classroom, grantees told us that they have used grant
funds to improve the quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications of current teachers.

When the Congress amended HEA in 1998 to provide grants to states and
partnerships, it required that Education evaluate all activities funded by
the grants. Education began a study in 2000 of state and recruitment
grants awarded in 1999. However, this study was cancelled by Education
before it was completed, and no preliminary findings were released.
Education officials cited the change in the department*s administration
when explaining why the evaluation was abandoned. Education has also been
conducting a 5- year study of some grants. Although this evaluation is The
Extent to Which

Grant Activities Will Affect the Quality of Teaching in the Classroom Will
Be Difficult to Determine

Page 22 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

designed to take a comprehensive look at grant activities, it is only
looking at partnership grants awarded in 1999, making this study too
limited for its result to apply to all grant activities. Because the
grants last only 3 to 5 years, Education may have lost its only
opportunity to collect the necessary information to determine if some
grant activities have affected the quality of teaching in the classroom.

In addition, Education did not provide adequate guidance to grantees on
what types of information to collect in order to determine the results of
their grant activities. For example, in order to determine results, a
grantee would need to collect information before and after the activity
for the group benefiting, as well as for a comparison group. Many grantees
told us that they did not collect this information because Education did
not provide them guidance on what types of information to collect. The
legislation required grantees to submit an annual report on their progress
toward meeting the program*s purposes* such as increased student
achievement* and its goals, objectives, and measures (see table 2).
Education officials provided only limited guidance* through brief
descriptions in the application packet and intermittent conversations with
grantees that requested assistance* on what information to include in the
annual report. Thus, the information that most grantees reported did not
allow Education to adequately determine the results of their grant
activities.

Page 23 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Table 2: Legislative Requirements for Annual Reports State grants
Partnership grants Recruitment grants

Annual reporting requirements States and partnerships receiving a grant
must report annually on their progress toward meeting the

purposes and the goals, objectives, and measures. Purposes (1) Improve
student achievement; (2) Improve the quality of the current and future
teaching force by

improving the preparation of prospective teachers and enhancing
professional development activities; (3) Hold institutions of higher
education accountable for preparing teachers who have the necessary
teaching skills and are highly competent in the academic content areas in
which the teachers plan to teach, such as mathematics, science, English,
foreign languages, history, economics, art, civics, Government, and
geography, including training in the effective uses of technology in the
classroom; and (4) Recruit highly qualified individuals, including
individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force. Goals,
objectives, and measures (1) Increase student achievement.

(2) Raise the state academic standards required to enter teaching. (3)
Increase success in the pass rate for initial state teacher certification
or licensure or increase numbers of those certified or licensed through
alternative programs. (4) Increase the percentage of school classes taught
by teachers with academic backgrounds related to their teaching
assignment. (5) Decrease shortages of qualified teachers in poor areas.
(6) Increase opportunities for professional development. (7) Increase the
number of teachers prepared to integrate technology in the classroom.

(1) Increase student achievement. (2) Increase teacher retention in the
first 3 years of a teacher*s career. (3) Increase success in the pass rate
for initial state certification or licensure of teachers. (4) Increase the
percentage of school classes taught by teachers with academic backgrounds
related to their teaching assignment. (5) Increase the number of teachers
trained in technology.

None listed. Source: GAO*s analysis of HEA.

Even though Education has not determined the extent to which all grant
activities affect the quality of teaching in the classroom, grantees told
us that they have used grant funds to improve the quality of teacher
training programs and the qualifications of current teachers. For example,
some grantees have been able to increase the number of teacher candidates
served through their grant programs. Many grantees also told us 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. For more information on grant
activities, see appendix III.

Page 24 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did not
allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher training
programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each state. The
accountability provisions require all institutions that enroll students
who receive federal student financial assistance and train teachers* not
just those institutions receiving teacher quality enhancement grants* to
provide information to their states on their teacher training programs and
program graduates. 15 In order to facilitate the collection of this
information, the legislation required Education to develop definitions for
key 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 reflected
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 and thereby
making it difficult to assess accountability. In addition, time spent
verifying the information from states and institutions was limited. This
limited verification led to the inclusion of inaccurate information in
Education*s report to the Congress.

Education defined some key terms broadly, resulting in inconsistent
reporting by states and institutions. 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 those who met all
the requirements of a stateapproved teacher preparation program. Table 3
explains our analysis of the information HEA required to be collected, the
way that Education defined selected terms to collect the information, and
the reporting

15 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 student 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 approved by the state. Information Collected

and Reported for the Accountability Provisions Does Not Accurately Portray
the Quality of Teacher Training Programs And the Qualifications of
Teachers

The Definitions of Some Key Terms Allowed for Inconsistent Reporting

Page 25 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

implications of Education*s definitions. Our survey indicated that 41
percent of respondents found compliance with reporting requirements a
challenge due to ambiguous definitions.

Table 3: Selected Definitions for the 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, these institutions
reported a 100- percent 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.

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
that it allowed them to report that few or no teachers had taken an
alternative route to certification.

Source: GAO*s analysis of HEA, Department of Education 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

Page 26 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

requiring teacher candidates to pass the state certification examination
as part of a teacher training program is not a problem, in and of itself,
reporting on only those candidates who pass the test does not provide the
basis to assess the quality of teacher training programs. For example,
some institutions in Georgia reported 100- percent pass rates in their
institutional report to the state, and Georgia, in turn, included these
100percent pass rates in its state report to Education. However, as part
of a state effort* separate from the federal accountability provisions* to
hold institutions accountable for how well they prepare teachers, Georgia
requires institutions to submit pass rates that include those who fail the
examination to the state each year. This resulted in lower institutional
pass rates than those included in the report to Education but is a
calculation closer to what the Congress intended Education to collect as
part of the accountability provisions.

In other instances, Education allowed states to define some key terms from
the legislation in a way that was applicable to their state because of the
variability in how states defined terms and collected information. This
allowed states to define 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* defined by Education as those teachers currently teaching without
having received an initial certificate or license. Because Education
allowed each state to define initial certificate or license for itself,
each state reported different information in its waiver count. Figure 7
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.

Page 27 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Figure 7: Criteria for Waiver Calculations Varies among Three Neighboring
States

In addition to the problems with the definitions, the fact that the
information collected was not adequately verified led to the inclusion of
inaccurate information on the quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications of current teachers. The contractor hired by Education to
collect the information allowed states to submit their information in
different computer formats. The contractor told us that this was done to
make the reporting process easier on the state agencies. Once received,
this information was put into a standard format in order to report to the
Congress. Although states were required to certify the information they
reported was accurate, errors occurred because of the way the information
was collected. Therefore, it was even more important that the information
be verified. However, the contractor stated that because it did not have
enough time to verify the information from states and institutions,
inaccurate information was included in the report to the Congress. The
contractor stated that 2 to 3 months would have been sufficient to verify
the information submitted to Education. Because it was only given 3 weeks
to verify, analyze, and report the information, a thorough job could not
be done. Alternatively, an audit of the data that states submit would
replace the need for additional time for data verification, but department
officials told us that they lack the resources for such an audit.

Additionally, it was not always obvious to the contractor which
information was inaccurate* for example, what a *typical* range of pass
rates might be* and the contractor acknowledged that this also led to the
The Data Collection

Process Contributed to Inaccurate Information

Maryland

Waiver count includes individuals who are issued a provisional certificate
or an alternative certificate.

Waiver count includes long- term substitute teachers.

Reported 13% of individuals teaching on waivers in Maryland.

Washington, D. C.

Waiver count does not include individuals who are issued a provisional
certificate.

Waiver count does not include long- term substitute teachers.

Reported 0% of individuals teaching on waivers in the District of
Columbia.

Virginia

Waiver count includes individuals pursuing an alternative route to
licensure and individuals issued a local eligibility license.

Waiver count includes long- term substitutes.

Reported 7% of individuals teaching on waivers in Virginia. Source: GAO's
analysis of school year 2000 state Title II reports.

Page 28 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

inclusion of some inaccurate information. When we contacted eight states
to check the accuracy of the information, we found errors in the
information for three of these states. In addition, a recent study found
that the information collected from South Carolina was not accurate. 16
South Carolina reported that 5.4 percent of its teachers were not fully
certified but, according to this study, this information* which was
reported to Education* included only 57 of 86 school districts in the
state.

Education officials told us that the data collection process has been
changed for the second round of collection of information. (For more
information on HEA*s accountability provisions, see appendix IV.)

In recognition of the importance of the quality of teaching in the
classroom, the Congress amended HEA to provide grant funds to improve
training programs for prospective teachers and the qualifications of
current teachers, but certain aspects of the administration of those grant
funds may make the legislation less effective than it could be. For
example, because Education has not always disseminated information to
grantees effectively, grantees without knowledge of successful ways of
enhancing the quality of teaching in the classroom might be wasting
valuable resources by duplicating unsuccessful efforts. In addition,
because Education does not have a system to thoroughly evaluate grant
activities* including providing guidance to grantees on the types of
information needed to determine effectiveness* information on what
activities improve the quality of teaching in the classroom will not be
available. Also, due to the lack of clearly defined key terms by Education
and adequate time for verification of data by its contractor, the
information Education collected and reported to the Congress under the
accountability provisions provided an inaccurate picture of the quality of
teacher training programs and the qualifications of current teachers.

Furthermore, 45 of 59 eligible states have already been approved for or
awarded state grants, and because the authorizing legislation specifically
requires that these grants can only be awarded once, only 14 states will
be eligible to receive future state grants under the current authorizing
legislation. Given this, and because the legislation requires that 45
percent of total grant funding be available for state grants, it is
possible that some

16 The Education Trust, Interpret With Caution: The First State Title II
Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation, Washington, D. C.: June
2002. Conclusions

Page 29 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

funding the Congress appropriates for teacher quality enhancement grants
will remain unspent.

In order to effectively manage the grant program, we recommend that the
Secretary of Education further develop and maintain a system for regularly
communicating program information, such as reporting deadlines and
successful and unsuccessful practices.

To provide information about the effectiveness of grant activities, we
recommend that the Secretary of Education establish a systematic approach
for evaluating all grant activities, including providing guidance to
grantees on the types of information needed to determine effectiveness.

To improve the information collected under the accountability provisions,
we recommend that the Secretary of Education

 define key terms from the legislation clearly and  allow sufficient
time for verification of the required information.

If the Congress decides to continue funding teacher quality enhancement
grants in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it
might want to clarify whether all 59 states will be eligible for state
grant funding under the reauthorization or whether eligibility would be
limited to only those states that have not previously received a state
grant. If the Congress decides to limit eligibility to states that have
not previously received a state grant, it may want to consider changing
the funding allocation for state grants.

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Education
generally agreed with the findings presented in the report. Education did
state, however, that we do not acknowledge the change of administration in
2001 and that our report should identify the changes being implemented by
the current administration to address deficiencies. While our work covered
questions and found problems with implementation under the current and
prior administrations, a comparison of management under the two
administrations is not within the scope of our work. However, grantees
reported that communication continues to be a problem. For example, as we
discuss in this report, at the beginning of the grant program grantees*
reported that they received regular communication from Education, but that
this level of communication was Recommendations

Matter for Congressional Consideration

Agency Comments

Page 30 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

not maintained due to Education*s management and staff turnover in recent
years. Because Education*s new efforts to address deficiencies have just
begun, it is too early to assess their impact on operations.

With respect to the accuracy of the Title II accountability report,
Education noted one particular instance of state reporting error* Maine*s
teacher certification information. According to Education, the mistake was
due to a third- party reporting error and not due to a lack of time for
data verification. However, we report on more widespread problems of data
reporting and verification. Among other things, we found that when we
contacted eight states to check the accuracy of the Title II information,
we found errors in the information for three of these states* Maine was
not one of the states contacted during this review. Of the problems that
we cited, additional time for data verification would be needed to improve
the accuracy of the information reported to the Congress.

Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated when
appropriate. Education*s comments appear in appendix V.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO*s Web site at
http:// www. gao. gov. Please call me at (202) 512- 8403 if you or your
staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix VI.

Cornelia M. Ashby Director, Education, Workforce

and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 31 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

To better understand whether the grants and reporting requirements are
contributing to improving the quality of teaching in the classroom, we
were asked to provide information on how the Higher Education Act has been
implemented. Specifically, we provide information on the following: (1)
how the Department of Education awarded grants and administered the grant
program, (2) what activities grantees funded and what results can be
associated with these activities, and (3) whether the information
collected under the accountability provisions allows for an accurate
report on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications
of current teachers.

We conducted 33 site visits in 11 states, which accounted for almost 50
percent of the total grant funding at the time of our review. We visited
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Grantees in these
states were selected because they provide a range of grant activities and
were geographically dispersed. At each grantee, we interviewed grant
officials to obtain comprehensive and detailed information about how the
grant program has been used to promote the quality of teacher training
programs and the qualifications of current teachers.

To learn about the implementation of these grants, we surveyed 91
grantees, the total at the time of our review. The response rate for this
survey was 87 percent. We also collected information on Education*s
administration of the grants* specifically the monitoring, evaluation, and
communication efforts* through our survey, site visits, and interviews
with Education officials. We rounded out this information with interviews
with experts on teaching and teacher training. The practical difficulties
of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as
nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in how a particular question
is interpreted or in the sources of information that are available to
grantees can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We
took steps in the development of the questionnaires, the data collection,
and the data editing and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. For
example, we pretested the questionnaire with a small number of grantees to
refine the survey instrument, and we called individual grantees, if
necessary, to clarify answers.

To determine if the information collected under the accountability
provisions allows for an accurate report on the quality of teacher
training programs and the qualifications of current teachers, we
interviewed officials from institutions and states who had collected and
reported information as a part of the accountability provisions. Our
survey gathered Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 32 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

information from institutions and states on the process of collecting and
reporting accountability provisions information. We also reviewed reports
and other research related to the accountability provisions. In addition,
we interviewed teacher quality experts and Education officials responsible
for all phases of the information collection, analysis, and reporting
process.

We reviewed Title II of the Higher Education Act and analyzed guidance
pertinent to the program. This review provided the foundation from which
we analyzed the information collected. In conducting the data collection,
we relied primarily on the opinions of the officials we interviewed and
the data and supporting documents they provided. We also reviewed, for
internal consistency, the data that officials provided us, and we sought
clarification where needed. We conducted our work between December 2001
and November 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

Appendix II: Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher Education
Act and the No Child Left Behind Act

Page 33 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants under Title II of the Higher Education
Act State grants Partnership grants Recruitment grants Who is eligible
States, including the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, 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

Partnerships, including a teacher training program, a college of Arts and
Sciences, and a high- need local educational agency

States or partnerships

Purpose (1) Improve student achievement; (2) Improve the quality of the
current and future teaching force by improving the preparation of
prospective teachers and enhancing professional development activities;
(3) Hold institutions of higher education accountable for preparing
teachers who have the necessary teaching skills and are highly competent
in the academic content areas in which the teachers plan to teach, such as
mathematics, science, English, foreign languages, history, economics, art,
civics, Government, and geography, including training in the effective
uses of technology in the classroom; and (4) Recruit highly qualified
individuals, including individuals from other occupations, into the
teaching force.

Funding method Competitive funding Competitive funding Competitive funding

45 % of total grant funding shall be made available 45 % of total grant
funding shall be

made available 10 % of total grant funding shall be made available

Use of funds Required* one or more of the following activities (1)
implementing reforms that hold institutions of higher education
accountable; (2) reforming teacher certification or licensure
requirements; (3) providing prospective teachers with alternatives to
traditional preparation for teaching; (4) carrying out programs that
include support during the initial teaching experience and establish,
expand, or improve alternative routes to State certification of teachers
for highly qualified individuals; (5) developing and implementing
effective mechanisms to recruit highly qualified teachers, reward high-
performing teachers and principals, and remove incompetent or unqualified
teachers; (6) developing and implementing efforts to address the problem
of social promotion; and/ or (7) other specified teacher recruitment
activities.

Required (1) implementing reforms to hold teacher training programs
accountable; (2) providing sustained and high- quality preservice clinical
experience; and (3) creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing
professional development

Allowable (1) preparing teachers to work with diverse student populations;
(2) broadly disseminating information on effective practices used by the
partnership and coordinating with state entities as appropriate; (3)
developing and implementing proven mechanisms to provide principals and
superintendents with effective managerial and leadership skills; and (4)
other specified teacher recruitment activities.

Required (1) awarding scholarships to help students pay the costs of
tuition, room, board, and other expenses of completing a teacher
preparation program; providing support services to scholarship recipients,
if needed; and providing follow- up services to former scholarship
recipients; or (2) developing and implementing effective mechanisms to
ensure the high- need local educational agencies are able to effectively
recruit highly qualified teachers.

Appendix II: Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher Education
Act and the No Child Left Behind Act

Appendix II: Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher Education
Act and the No Child Left Behind Act

Page 34 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment Grants under Title II of
the No Child Left Behind Act State grants Partnership subgrants Local
education agency

subgrants Who is eligible States, including the U. S. Virgin Islands,

Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands; and the Secretary of the Interior for programs operated or funded
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Partnership, consisting of a teacher training program, a college of Arts
and Sciences, and a high- need local educational agency

Local education agencies (LEA)

Purpose The purpose of this part is to provide grants to state educational
agencies, LEAs, state agencies for higher education, and eligible
partnerships in order to (1) increase student academic achievement through
strategies such as improving teacher and principal quality and increasing
the number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom and highly
qualified principals and assistant principals in schools; and (2) hold
LEAs and schools accountable for improvements in student academic
achievement.

Funding method Formula funding through application Competitive grants from
states Formula funding through application

2.5 % of total funding available 2. 5 % of total funding available 95 % of
total funding available

Use of funds Required* One or more of 18 listed activities, including
reforming teacher and principal certification or licensing requirements;
carrying out programs that establish, expand, or improve alternative
routes for state certification of teachers and principals; developing and
implementing mechanisms to assist LEAs and schools in effectively
recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers.

Required (1) providing professional development activities in core
academic subjects to ensure that teachers and highly qualified
paraprofessionals, and if appropriate, principals have subject matter
knowledge, including the use of computer related technology; and that
principals have instructional leadership skills and/ or; (2) developing
and providing assistance to LEAs, their teachers, highly qualified
paraprofessionals, or principals for professional development activities
that ensure that individuals are able to use state standards and
assessments in order to improve instructional practices and student
achievement. These may include programs to prepare those who may be
providing this instruction, and activities of partnerships between LEAs,
and institutions of higher education to improve teaching and learning at
lowperforming schools.

Required* One or more of nine listed activities, including developing and
implementing mechanisms to assist schools in effectively recruiting and
retaining highly qualified teachers, developing and implementing
initiatives to assist in recruiting highly qualified teachers, and
carrying out various professional development activities designed to
improve the quality of principals and superintendents and to improve the
knowledge of teachers and principals in various areas.

Appendix II: Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher Education
Act and the No Child Left Behind Act

Page 35 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants under Title II of the Higher Education
Act State grants Partnership grants Recruitment grants Accountability for
grants States and partnerships receiving grants must report annually on
their progress toward meeting the

purposes of the legislation and the goals, objectives, and measures
described below. (1) Increasing student achievement; (2) Raising the state
academic standards required to enter teaching; (3) Increasing success in
the pass rate for initial state teacher certification or licensure or
increasing numbers of those certified or licensed through alternative
programs; (4) Increasing the percentage of school classes taught by
teachers with academic backgrounds related to their teaching assignment;
(5) Decreasing shortages of qualified teachers in poor areas; (6)
Increasing opportunities for professional development; and (7) Increasing
the number of teacher prepared to integrate technology in the classroom.

(1) Increasing student achievement; (2) Increasing teacher retention in
the first 3 years of a teacher's career; (3) Increasing success in the
pass rate for initial state certification or licensure of teachers; and
(4) Increasing the percentage of school classes taught by teachers with
academic backgrounds related to their teaching assignment; and (5)
Increasing the number of teachers trained in technology.

None listed.

Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment Grants under Title II of
the No Child Left Behind Act State grants Partnership grants Local
education

agency subgrants Accountability for grants None listed. None listed. Every
year the state

requires that LEAs must report on the annual progress of the LEA and each
of their schools in meeting the state's annual measurable objectives in
increasing the number of highly qualified teachers. If the state
determines that an LEA has failed to make progress in meeting these
objectives for 2 consecutive years, the LEA must develop an improvement
plan. If the state determines that an LEA has failed to make progress in
meeting these objectives for 3 consecutive years, then the state must
enter into an agreement with the LEA on the use of the subgrant funds.

Source: GAO*s analysis of Title II of the Higher Education Act and Title
II of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities

Page 36 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Grant awarded to Amount funded Grant activities include Years funded State
Grants

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing $10,588,598 The California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing is using

some of its funds to help support the development of shorter teacher
training programs. Some of the grant funds are also being used to develop
new requirements for teacher training programs, providing them with
assistance in making the transition, and providing professional
development to new teachers.

1999- 2001 Connecticut State Department of Education $1,764,447 The
Connecticut State Department of Education is using its

grant funds to reform the certification requirements for teachers
statewide and develop alternate routes to certification for recruiting new
people into the field of teaching. They are able to provide scholarships,
stipends, and professional development to some participants.

1999- 2001 Georgia Board of Regents $9,949,480 The Georgia Board of
Regents grant funds provide

universities and school districts with smaller subgrants. Among other
things, some of these subgrantees are using their grants to attract
academically talented high school students into teacher training programs.
Also, some are designing programs to attract mid- career professionals
into the field of teaching by offering courses at convenient times and
locations, and in some cases online. The grant is also being used to
reform requirements and provide professional development for teachers.

1999- 2001 Illinois Board of Higher Education $4,068,086 The Illinois
Board of Higher Education is using grant funds to

develop preliminary requirements for a middle school teaching certificate
and is partnering with four universities in the state that serve high-
poverty students. The four partner universities are redesigning their
coursework to recruit and better prepare teacher candidates for the middle
grades.

2000- 2002 Maryland State Department of Education $5,632,049 The Maryland
State Department of Education is using most of

its funds to provide subgrants to help teacher training programs implement
new state requirements of providing professional development to teacher
candidates.

1999- 2001 Massachusetts Department of Education $3,524,149 The
Massachusetts Department of Education is using its

grant funds to create a database system that tracks teachers who are
prepared, licensed, and employed in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts
Department of Education is also designing a mentor training program and
reforming its requirements for teachers.

1999- 2001 North Carolina Department of Public Instruction $8,379,462 The
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction is using

its grant funds to implement a new teacher training program for mid-
career professionals. The program begins with a fulltime summer course,
followed by seminars that are conducted during the following school year.
The grant is also being used to develop new requirements and provide
mentoring services for beginning teachers.

1999- 2001

Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities

Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities

Page 37 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Grant awarded to Amount funded Grant activities include Years funded

Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

$3,358,502 The Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education is using its grant funds to implement new requirements for
teacher training programs and provide technical assistance to teacher
training programs so that they will comply with the new state
requirements. The funds are also being used to develop a mentor training
program and a professional development demonstration site.

1999- 2001 Tennessee Department of Education $1,745,465 The Tennessee
Department of Education is using its funds to

provide financial support to universities so they can improve their
teacher training programs by partnering with a K- 12 school. Grant funds
are also helping to provide mentors to new teachers and develop a tool-
kit for school administrators to learn how to provide professional
development opportunities in schools. The grant is also supporting the
development of a new alternate route to certification.

1999- 2001 Texas State Board for Teacher Certification $10,751,154 The
Texas State Board for Teacher Certification is using its grant

funds to reform the requirements and design a program that provides
systematic support for first and second year teachers. To do this, the
board is developing an array of models for providing support to new
teachers and has disseminated these models to the wider educational
community. The board is also providing some of the state*s beginning
teachers with support teams.

1999- 2001 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction $3,283,720 The
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction is using its funds

to develop new requirements for teacher training programs, an alternative
certification model to recruit new teachers that meets the same
requirements as traditional teacher training programs, and a statewide
mentor- training model.

1999- 2001

Partnership grants

Northern California Partnership Grant (California State
UniversitySacramento) $1,277,426 The Northern California Partnership Grant
is focusing its grant

activities in two areas: (1) creating a blended elementary teacher
education program so that teacher candidates can meet their credit
requirements faster and (2) establishing a network with six school
districts so that the program is providing teacher training and
professional development that is synchronized with the needs of K- 12
schools.

2000- 2004 The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP)
(University of Georgia)

$6,492,635 GSTEP is a partnership among three universities and 11 school
districts that aims to develop a six- year teacher training experience.
The six- year experience would consist of four years of teacher training
at a university program and two years of support and supervision by
university faculty after they become teachers.

2000- 2004 Illinois Teacher Education Partnership (National Louis
University)

$6,308,245 Illinois Teacher Education Partnership is a partnership of 10
school districts, six community colleges, and National Louis University to
bring teacher- training programs to three underserved regions in Illinois.
Classes are taught by National Louis faculty in local community colleges
during evening and weekend hours to accommodate working students*
schedules. Illinois Teacher Education Partnership is also using funds to
provide professional development for teachers.

2000- 2004

Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities

Page 38 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Grant awarded to Amount funded Grant activities include Years funded

Illinois Professional Learners* Partnership (Illinois State University)

$12,611,607 The Illinois Professional Learners Partnership consists of
representatives from universities, community colleges, school districts,
business partners, and other educational agencies. The partnership is
focusing its efforts on improving the quantity and quality of beginning
teachers in schools that had a teacher shortage by implementing various
activities at each partner university, including re- designing the teacher
training curriculum and providing support for new teachers.

1999- 2003 Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality (Western
Kentucky University)

$5,711,847 The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality is an
initiative by 11 teacher training programs in 10 states to improve the
quality of their graduates and teachers in local partner schools by
focusing attention on P- 12 student learning. The partnership is focusing
on seven activities, such as mentoring teacher candidates and requiring
teacher candidates to provide work samples as evidence of their classroom
abilities.

1999- 2003 Project SITE SUPPORT (The Johns Hopkins University)

$12,660,901 Project SITE SUPPORT is a partnership among several school
districts and three universities that are working together to recruit,
prepare, support, and retain new teachers to meet the diverse learning
needs of K- 12 students in high- need urban schools.

1999- 2003 Project Learning in Communities (LINC) (University System of
Maryland)

$4,187,912 The Project LINC grant program is focusing its efforts in three
areas: mentoring new teachers, partnering its teacher preparation program
with local schools for professional development, and providing technology.
This project is also funding some stipends and paid internships.

2000- 2004 Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student
Achievement (Boston College)

$7,168,926 The Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student
Achievement is partnering with seven universities and public schools in
three cities around the state in an effort to provide teachers with the
skills and knowledge they require in order to be successful educators in
Massachusetts* urban public schools. The Coalition is using its funds to
reform requirements for teachers, provide professional development, and
recruit for urban schools.

1999- 2003 Teaching Matters, Quality Counts (North Carolina Central
University)

$3,781,980 The Teaching Matters, Quality Counts grant at North Carolina
Central University is funding scholarships to talented high school and
community college graduates who promise to teach in partner schools. The
grant is also funding a mentoring program for new teachers.

1999- 2003 Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for
the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT) (University of Tennessee Chattanooga)

$3,270,959 Urban IMPACT is a partnership consisting of two universities
and two school districts. The goal of Urban IMPACT is to increase the
quantity and quality of urban teachers by providing professional
development activities and redesigning the coursework at the teacher
training programs to aid in the recruitment for urban schools. Urban
IMPACT also provides new teachers with mentors and peer group meetings to
help ensure they are receiving adequate support in their first three years
of teaching.

1999- 2003

Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities

Page 39 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Grant awarded to Amount funded Grant activities include Years funded

Project Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT) (Our Lady of the
Lake University)

$5,604,478 Project CoMeT is a partnership consisting of a 4- year
university* Our Lady of the Lake University* two community colleges,
several school districts, and one PK- 12 school. The partnership is
focusing on reforming the curriculum for teacher candidates at the
University to recruit mid- career teacher candidates, providing
competitive grants to schools and school districts so that they may have
more funds for instructional materials, and mentoring new teachers.

1999- 2003 Institute for School- University Partnerships (Texas A& M
University)

$11,623,979 The grant at Texas A& M University provides funding for a
partnership consisting of all nine A& M universities in Texas and 87 high-
need schools that aim to increase the number of teachers prepared in the
Texas A& M system. The grant provides funding for college scholarships to
high school graduates committed to teaching as well as professional
development and mentoring to new teachers. Some grant funds are also being
used to reform the requirements for teachers graduating from the A& M
system.

1999- 2003 Partnership for Quality Education (University of Houston)

$3,945,239 The Partnership for Quality Education is a partnership of four
universities, six school districts, a community college, and a nonprofit
agency. The goal of the grant is to prepare teachers for urban schools by
redesigning the teacher training programs and providing professional
development.

2000- 2004 University of WisconsinMilwaukee $8,456,364 The University of
Wisconsin *Milwaukee grant is focusing its

efforts on creating new curriculum and recruiting individuals to teach in
urban schools. This program is also funding a teacher leadership program
for veteran teachers to assist and mentor new teachers.

2000- 2004

Recruitment grants

Los Angeles Unified School District $956,261 The Los Angeles Unified
School District is using grant funds to

target high school students interested in a teaching career by providing
paid internships for high school students to assist current teachers in
the classroom. The grant also funds the development of public service
announcements to encourage people to become teachers.

1999- 2001 Oakland Unified School District $1,026,168 The Oakland Unified
School District targets current teacher

assistants providing tuition assistance to enable them to become certified
teachers. The grant is also reforming the curriculum at a local university
and is providing tutoring and preparation courses for state certification
examinations to teacher candidates.

1999- 2001 San Diego State University Foundation $1,412,828 The goal of
the grant program at the San Diego State University

Foundation is to recruit teachers for high- poverty schools. Grant
activities include promoting early awareness of teaching as a career at
the middle school and high school levels and providing scholarships and
support to students at three community colleges and San Diego State
University.

1999- 2001 University of California* Los Angeles (University of California
Regents Office)

$1,213,295 The majority of grant funds at the University of California-
Los Angeles are being used for scholarships to first and second year
students in their master- level teacher training program, as well as
teacher candidates majoring in mathematics. The grant is also funding a
program that encourages middle and high school students to become
teachers.

1999- 2001

Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities

Page 40 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Grant awarded to Amount funded Grant activities include Years funded

Connecticut State Dept of Education $938,428 The focus of the Connecticut
State Department of Education

recruitment grant is the coordination of various statewide efforts to
address the shortage of minority teachers in the state. Specifically, this
grant is supporting efforts to recruit minority students from Connecticut
middle and high schools to become teachers in subject areas identified as
shortage areas in the state. Additionally, grant funds are being used for
scholarships and workshops.

1999- 2001 Teacher Recruitment Initiative in Tennessee (TRI- IT!)
(University of TennesseeChattanooga) $1,193,297 The TRI- IT! grant program
is a partnership between two

universities and two school districts. The program activities vary on the
two university campuses, but include a recruitment strategy for increasing
the number of teachers in mathematics, science, foreign languages, and
special education. Scholarships are given to teacher candidates who are
enrolled in the teacher training programs and are interested in teaching
these subjects. The grant also funds professional development for
teachers.

1999- 2001 Teacher Recruitment and Induction Project (TRIP) (Southwest
Texas State University)

$1,051,241 TRIP is an accelerated teacher training program for mid- career
professionals. The majority of grant funds pay for tuition assistance for
the program, and the salaries for four full- time master teachers* who are
on loan from the local school district* to serve as mentors. These mentors
supervise the student- teaching component of the program, as well as
support new teachers.

1999- 2001 Milwaukee Public Schools $844,357 The focus of the Milwaukee
Public Schools grant is to reduce

teacher shortages by recruiting mid- career professionals who already have
a bachelor*s degree and are committed to working in an urban setting. In
addition, the grant funds recruitment efforts by providing introductory
education courses on high school campuses. University faculty teach these
courses, and the high school students earn college credit if they pass the
course.

1999- 2001 Note: Shading is used to show how the grants differ. Source:
GAO*s analysis of grant activities from site visits and documents from the
U. S. Department of Education.

Appendix IV: Accountability Provision Description

Page 41 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Title II, Section 207 of the Higher Education Act requires the annual
preparation and submission of three reports on teacher preparation and
qualifications: a report from institutions to states, a report from states
to the Secretary of Education, and a report from the Secretary of
Education to Congress and the public. The legislation also requires that
the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics
(Department of Education), in consultation with the states and
institutions of higher education, develop definitions for key terms, and
uniform reporting methods (including the definitions for the consistent
reporting of pass rates), related to the performance of teacher
preparation programs.

The reports mandated in the legislation are required of the following: 1.
Institutions of higher education. Institutions that conduct teacher

preparation programs enrolling students who receive federal assistance
under the Title IV of HEA must submit timely and accurate reports or risk
imposition of a fine up to $25,000.

2. States. States receiving HEA funds must submit the reports as a
condition of receiving HEA funding.

3. The Secretary of Education. The Secretary of Education must compile the
information into a national report.

Institutions are required to report annually to their state:

 A comparison of the program*s pass rate with the average pass rate for
programs in the state.

 For the most recent year for which the information is available, the
pass rate of the institution*s graduates on the teacher certification or
licensure assessments of the state in which the institution is located,
but only for those students who took those assessments within 3 years of
completing the program.

 In the case of teacher preparation programs with fewer than 10 graduates
taking any single initial teacher certification or licensure assessment
during an academic year, the institution shall collect and publish
information with respect to an average pass rate on state certification or
licensure assessments taken over a 3- year period. a

 In states that approve or accredit teacher education programs, a
statement of whether the institution*s program is so approved or
accredited.

 Whether the program has been designated as low- performing by the state.

 The number of students in the program, the average number of hours of
supervised practice teaching required for those in the program, and the
facultystudent ratio in supervised practice teaching.

Appendix IV: Accountability Provision Description

Appendix IV: Accountability Provision Description

Page 42 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

States are required to report annually to the Secretary of Education:

 The percentage of teaching candidates who passed each of the assessments
used by the state for teacher certification and licensure and the passing
score on each assessment that determines whether a candidate has passed
that assessment.

 The percentage of teaching candidates who passed each of the assessments
used by the state for teacher certification and licensure, disaggregated
and ranked, by the teacher preparation program in that state from which
the teacher candidate received the candidate*s most recent degree, which
shall be made available widely and publicly.

 Information on the extent to which teachers or prospective teachers in
each state are required to take examinations or other assessments of their
subject matter knowledge in the area or areas in which the teachers
provide instruction, the standards established for passing any such
assessments, and the extent to which teachers or prospective teachers are
required to receive a passing score on such assessments in order to teach
in specific subject areas or grade levels.

 The standards and criteria that prospective teachers must meet in order
to attain initial teacher certification or licensure and to be certified
or licensed to teach particular subjects or in particular grades within
the state.

 For each state, a description of proposed criteria for assessing the
performance of teacher preparation programs within institutions of higher
education in the state, including indicators of teacher candidate
knowledge and skills.

 A description of the teacher certification and licensure assessments and
any other certification and licensure requirements used by the state.

 A description of the extent to which the teacher certification,
licensure assessments, and requirements are aligned with the state*s
standards and assessments for students.

 Information on the extent to which teachers in the state are given
waivers of state certification or licensure requirements, including the
proportion of such teachers distributed across high- and low- poverty
school districts and across subject areas.

 A description of each state*s alternative routes to teacher
certification, if any, and the percentage of teachers certified through
alternative certification routes who pass state teacher certification or
licensure assessments.

The Secretary of Education is required to report annually to the Congress:

 A report on teacher qualifications and preparation in the United States,
including all of the information reported by the states and make the
report available to the public.

 A comparison of states* efforts to improve teaching quality, and
regarding the national mean and median scores on any standardized test
that is used in more than one state for teacher certification or
licensure.

 In the case of teacher preparation programs with fewer than 10 graduates
taking any single initial teacher certification or licensure assessment
during an academic year, the Secretary shall collect and publish
information with respect to an average pass rate on state certification or
licensure assessments taken over a 3- year period.

 The Secretary, to the extent practicable, shall coordinate the
information collected and published under this title among states for
individuals who took state teacher certification or licensure assessments
in a state other than the state in which the individual received the
individual*s most recent degree. a Education guidance states that in order
for data on an assessment to be reported, there must be at

least 10 program completers taking that assessment in an academic year.
Source: GAO*s analysis of the Higher Education Act.

Appendix IV: Accountability Provision Description

Page 43 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

The following are additional state functions required by the legislation:
 A state shall have in place a procedure to identify, and assist, through

the provision of technical assistance, low- performing programs of teacher
preparation within institutions of higher education. Such state shall
provide the Secretary an annual list of such low- performing institutions
that includes an identification of those institutions at risk of being
placed on such list. Such levels of performance shall be determined solely
by the state and may include criteria based upon information collected
pursuant to this title.

 Any institution of higher education that offers a program of teacher
preparation in which the state has withdrawn the state*s approval or
terminated the state*s financial support due to the low performance of the
institution*s teacher preparation program based upon the state assessment
described shall be ineligible for any funding for professional development
activities awarded by the Department of Education; and shall not be
permitted to accept or enroll any student that receives aid under Title IV
of this act in the institution*s teacher preparation program.

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education

Page 44 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education

Page 45 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education

Page 46 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 47 GAO- 03- 6 Teacher Quality

Kelsey Bright, Assistant Director, (202) 512- 9037 Sonya Harmeyer,
Analyst- in- Charge, (202) 512- 7128

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made important
contributions to this report: Tamara Harris, Anjali Tekchandani, Corinna
Nicolaou, Richard Burkard, Jonathan Barker, Paul Chapman, Jeff Edmondson,
Stuart Kaufman, and Bonita Vines. Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments Contacts Acknowledgments

(130092)

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists
to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to
help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government
for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and
other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and
funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good government is reflected in its
core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov
and select *Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products*
under the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U.
S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO*s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***