    No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States
    Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified (17-JUL-03,
    GAO-03-631).

    In December 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act
    (NCLBA). The act required that all teachers of core subjects be
    highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year and
    provided funding to help states and districts meet the
    requirement. In general, the act requires that teachers have a
    bachelor's degree, meet full state certification, and demonstrate
    subject area knowledge for every core subject they teach. This
    report focuses on the (1) number of teachers who met the highly
    qualified criteria during the 2002-03 school year, (2) conditions
    that hinder states' and districts' ability to meet the
    requirement, and (3) activities on which states and districts
    were planning to spend their Title II funds. GAO surveyed 50
    states and the District of Columbia and a nationally
    representative sample of districts about their plans to implement
    the requirement. GAO also visited and interviewed officials in 8
    states and 16 districts to discuss their efforts to implement the
    law.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-631
        ACCNO:   A07551
      TITLE:     No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help
    States Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified
         DATE:   07/17/2003
      SUBJECT:   Evaluation criteria
    	     Surveys
    	     Teacher education
    	     Teachers
    	     Aid for education
    	     Education or training costs
    	     Performance measures

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-03-631

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

    July 2003 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

    More Information Would Help States Determine Which Teachers Are Highly
    Qualified

    GAO- 03- 631

    GAO could not develop reliable data on the number of highly qualified
    teachers because states did not have the information needed to determine
    whether all teachers met the criteria. Officials from 8 states visited
    said they did not have the information they needed to develop methods to
    evaluate current teachers* subject area knowledge and the criteria for
    some teachers

    were not issued until December 2002. Officials from 7 of 8 states visited
    said they did not have data systems that could track teacher
    qualifications for each core subject they teach.

    Source: U. S. Department of Education. Both state and district officials
    cited many conditions in the GAO survey that hinder their ability to have
    all highly qualified teachers. State and district officials reported
    teacher pay issues, such as low salaries and lack of incentive pay,
    teacher shortages, and other issues as hindrances. GAO*s survey estimates
    show that significantly more high- poverty than low- poverty districts
    reported hindrances, such as little support for new teachers. Rural
    district officials cited hindrances related to their size and isolated
    locations. State officials reported they needed assistance or information
    from Education, such as in developing incentives to teach in high- poverty
    schools, and Education*s strategic plan addresses some of these needs. To
    help meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers, state survey

    respondents reported they planned to spend about 65 percent of their Title
    II funds on professional development activities authorized under Title II,
    and districts planned to spend an estimated 66 percent on recruitment and
    retention. Both state and district officials planned to spend much larger
    amounts of funds from sources other than Title II funds on such
    activities. High- poverty districts planned to spend more Title II funds
    on recruitment and retention than low- poverty districts. State and
    district officials visited said that most activities were a continuation
    of those begun previously. In December 2001, Congress

    passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). The act required that all
    teachers of core subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005- 06
    school year and provided funding to help states and districts meet the
    requirement. In general, the act requires that teachers have a bachelor*s
    degree, meet full state

    certification, and demonstrate subject area knowledge for every core
    subject they teach. This

    report focuses on the (1) number of teachers who met the highly qualified
    criteria during the 2002- 03 school year, (2) conditions that

    hinder states* and districts* ability to meet the requirement, and (3)
    activities on which states and districts were planning to spend

    their Title II funds. GAO surveyed 50 states and the District of Columbia
    and a nationally representative sample of districts about their plans to
    implement the requirement. GAO also visited and interviewed officials in 8
    states and 16 districts to discuss their efforts to implement the law.

    To help states determine which teachers are highly qualified and the
    actions they need to take to meet the requirement, GAO recommends that the
    Secretary of Education provide more

    information to states, especially on ways to evaluate the subject area
    knowledge of current teachers. The

    Department of Education provided written comments on a draft of this
    report and generally agreed with GAO*s recommendation. www. gao. gov/ cgi-
    bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 631. To view the full product, including the scope

    and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact
    Marnie S. Shaul, 512- 7215, shaulm@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 631,
    a report to

    Congressional Requesters

    July 2003

    NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

    More Information Would Help States Determine Which Teachers Are Highly
    Qualified

    Page i GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Letter 1 Results in Brief 2
    Background 5 Many States Were Uncertain about Numbers of Highly Qualified

    Teachers 10 State and District Officials Reported Many Conditions as
    Hindrances to Meeting the Law 13 To Help Teachers Meet the Requirement
    States Planned to Spend Most Title II Funds on Professional Development
    Activities, and Districts Will Spend Most on Recruitment and Retention
    Activities 23 Conclusions 29 Recommendation for Executive Action 29 Agency
    Comments and Our Evaluation 29 Appendix I Scope and Methodology 31

    Appendix II Activities on Which States Can Spend Title II, Part A Funds 37

    Appendix III Activities on Which Districts Can Spend Title II, Part A
    Funds 38

    Appendix IV Comments from the U. S. Department of Education 39

    Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 42 GAO Contacts 42 Staff
    Acknowledgments 42 Contents

    Page ii GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Tables

    Table 1: Federal Criteria for a Highly Qualified Teacher 7 Table 2:
    Estimated Percentages of Districts That Will Have Difficulty Meeting the
    Requirement for Highly Qualified Teachers by Grade Level and Poverty 12
    Table 3: Number of States Reporting on Conditions That Hinder

    Their Ability to Meet the Requirement for Highly Qualified Teachers
    (Ranked from Highest to Lowest) 17 Table 4: Estimated Percentages of
    Districts Reporting on

    Conditions That Hinder Their Ability to Meet the Requirement for Highly
    Qualified Teachers (Ranked from Highest to Lowest) 19 Table 5: Estimated
    Percentages of High- and Low- Poverty Districts

    with Significant Differences in the Hindrances to Meeting the Requirement
    21 Table 6: Estimated Percent of Spending Title II Funds by Activities

    for All Districts, High- Poverty Districts, and Low- Poverty Districts 26
    Table 7: Population and Sample by Stratum 32 Table 8: Sample Estimates
    Compared to Population Values 34 Table 9: Population and Sample by Region
    35 Table 10: Title II, Part A State Activities 37 Table 11: Title II, Part
    A District Activities 38 Figures

    Figure 1: Education*s Assistance to States During Calendar Year 2002 9
    Figure 2: Planned Spending of Title II Funds by Reporting States 24 Figure
    3: Sources of Funds for Planned Spending by States on Title

    II Activities 25 Figure 4: Estimated Spending of Title II Funds as a
    Percentage of Total Funds by Activities for All Districts, High- Poverty
    Districts, and Low- Poverty Districts 28 Figure 5: State Survey
    Respondents 31

    Page iii GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Abbreviations

    CCD Core of Common Data CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers CMSA
    Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area LEA Local Education Agency MSA
    Metropolitan Statistical Area NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act This is a
    work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in
    the

    United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
    without further permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics,
    images or other materials. Permission from the copyright holder may be
    necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted materials separately
    from GAO*s product.

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind July 17, 2003 The Honorable
    Edward M. Kennedy The Honorable Jeff Bingaman

    United States Senate In December 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left
    Behind Act (NCLBA), which, among other things, focused attention on
    closing the achievement gaps among various groups of students. Recently, a
    body of research has shown that quality teachers play a significant role
    in improving student performance. However, research has also shown that
    many teachers, especially those in high- poverty and rural districts, 1
    were not certified and lacked knowledge of the subjects they taught. NCLBA
    established the requirement that all teachers be highly qualified for each
    core subject they teach by the end of the 2005- 06 school year. 2 The
    criteria for meeting this requirement vary somewhat by grade level and
    experience

    but generally require that teachers have (1) a bachelor*s degree, (2)
    state certification, and (3) subject area knowledge for each core subject
    they teach. This represents the first time the federal government has
    established specific criteria for teachers. Title II, Part A, of NCLBA
    replaced the Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size Reduction
    programs with the Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund and
    Congress appropriated $2.85 billion to help states and districts meet the
    requirement. In addition, Title II directed these funds to be spent on
    specific activities to help states and districts recruit, retain, and
    develop highly qualified teachers. The Department of Education (Education)
    administers Title II and is responsible for oversight of states*
    implementation of NCLBA.

    Given the need for states and districts to meet the requirement for highly
    qualified teachers by the end of the 2005- 06 school year, you asked us to
    determine what they were doing to have their teachers meet the
    requirement. Specifically, this report focuses on the (1) number of
    teachers who met the highly qualified teacher criteria during the 2002- 03
    school year, (2) conditions that hinder states* and districts* ability

    1 In this report, the term *district* refers to local education agencies.
    2 Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, mathematics,
    science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts,
    history, and geography.

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind to meet the requirement, and (3)
    activities on which states and districts were planning to spend their
    Title II funds.

    In conducting our work, we surveyed 50 states and the District of
    Columbia. We obtained responses for 37 of these 51 surveys and reported
    the results as representing only those that responded. The student
    enrollment for the responding states represented 85 percent of total
    student population in kindergarten through 12th grade. In addition, we
    surveyed a nationally representative sample of 830 school districts. We
    received a response from 511 or 62 percent. We compared relevant
    characteristics of these respondents to the universe of districts and
    found them to be similar, which along with the response rate allowed us to
    report national estimates. 3 For our comparisons of high- and low- poverty
    districts, we included responding districts that had 70 percent or more of
    their students approved for free and reduced- price meals as high- poverty
    and those with 30 percent or less of their students approved for free and
    reduced- price meals as low- poverty. We visited and interviewed officials
    in 8 states selected with a range of characteristics that might affect
    their

    ability to meet the requirement* California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa,
    Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, and Wyoming. We visited 2 districts in
    each of the states and 1 school in each district. We interviewed U. S.
    Department of Education officials, and officials from professional
    organizations and unions that represent teachers. Additionally, we
    analyzed the legislation, related reports, and relevant documents. See
    appendix I for detailed information on the methodology. We conducted our
    work from July 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards.

    We could not develop reliable data on the number of highly qualified
    teachers because states did not have the information needed to determine
    whether all teachers met the criteria. During our visits state officials
    did not know the criteria for some of their teachers. Education*s draft
    guidance on the criteria for teachers in alternative certification
    programs changed between June and December of 2002, which meant that
    states had to reassess their teachers* qualifications. Guidance for
    special education teachers was not available until December 2002, and it
    was contained in an 3 All percentage estimates produced from the district
    survey have sampling errors of no more than plus or minus 10 percentage
    points, at a 95 percent confidence level, unless

    otherwise noted. Results in Brief

    Page 3 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind appendix to the Title I
    regulations, but not in the federal regulations. Also, states did not have
    the information they needed to develop methods to

    evaluate subject area knowledge of their current teachers. In our survey,
    32 of 37 state respondents said that they needed clear and timely guidance
    from Education. Additionally, officials from 7 of the 8 states we visited
    said they did not have data systems that could track teacher
    qualifications by subject, which they needed to determine if a highly
    qualified teacher

    taught each core subject. One official added a comment to the survey that
    said the state data system on teachers *was designed years ago for state
    certification purposes*[ and] has not yet been updated to include all
    NCLBA criteria for teachers.* Some state officials we interviewed also
    expressed reservations about changing their data systems before complete
    guidance was issued. Furthermore, 6 of the 8 state officials were
    reluctant to say that their certified teachers might not be highly
    qualified because they believed it would harm teacher morale. Thus, we
    concluded that the survey data related to the number of highly qualified
    teachers would not

    likely be reliable. Both state and district officials cited many
    conditions that hinder their ability to have all highly qualified
    teachers. Many state officials reported issues related to teacher pay,
    such as low salaries, lack of incentive pay programs, and a lack of career
    ladders as hindrances. For example, 32 of the 37 state officials
    responding to our survey said that teacher salaries were low compared with
    other occupations. During our visits officials said that salary issues
    particularly hindered their efforts to recruit and retain

    math and science teachers. Twenty- three of the 37 state officials
    reported teacher shortages in high need subject areas* mostly math,
    science, and special education. During the late 1990s, there was an
    increase in demand for workers with math and science backgrounds,
    especially in information technology, and these occupations generally paid
    higher salaries than teaching. Other hindrances cited by state officials
    included few programs to support new teachers, a lack of leadership from
    principals, and union agreements. Our survey estimates show that salary
    issues were also hindrances for the majority of the districts, and about
    20 percent of all districts cited teacher development conditions such as
    (1) weak technology training for teachers, (2) few alternative
    certification programs, and (3) professional development programs of too
    short a duration to improve teacher quality. In addition, significantly
    more highpoverty than low- poverty districts identified some conditions as
    hindrances, according to our survey responses. For example, an estimated
    30 percent of high- poverty districts compared to 6 percent of low-
    poverty

    districts cited few programs to support new teachers. Officials in rural
    districts we visited and who commented on the survey said they faced

    Page 4 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind unusual conditions because some
    of them were very small, isolated, or had only one or two teachers in
    total at some schools. While many of the

    hindrances that state and district officials reported could not be
    addressed by Education, at least half of the state survey respondents
    indicated that Education could be more helpful. Specifically, they said
    they needed more information on, or assistance with, professional
    development programs, best practices related to teacher quality, and
    incentives for teachers to teach in high- poverty schools. Education has
    identified several steps it will take in its 2002- 07 strategic plan
    related to these issues.

    Title II provided funds to help meet the requirement for highly qualified
    teachers, and state survey respondents said they planned to spend most of
    their Title II funds on professional development activities while
    districts planned to spend the majority of their funds on recruitment and
    retention activities authorized under Title II. Generally, state
    educational agencies

    could use up to 2.5 percent of the state*s Title II funds for authorized
    state activities. State officials reported they planned to spend 65
    percent on professional development activities. These activities could
    help teachers enhance their subject area knowledge and complete state
    licensing requirements to meet the criteria for highly qualified teachers.
    States planned to spend much larger amounts of other federal and state
    funds than Title II funds on authorized state activities. For example,
    states reported that 85 percent of the total funds they planned to spend
    on professional development activities would come from other federal and
    state funds. Districts received about 95 percent of their state*s Title II

    funds for authorized district activities. From our survey we estimated
    that districts planned to spend about two- thirds of their Title II funds
    on activities to help recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, with
    the remaining funds on activities for professional development. High-
    poverty districts planned to spend a larger percentage of Title II funds
    on recruitment and retention activities than low- poverty districts. For
    example, high- poverty districts planned to spend 77 percent of their
    Title II funds for recruitment and retention while low- poverty districts
    planned to spend 59 percent. Recruitment and retention activities, such as
    establishing incentive pay programs and reducing class sizes, could help
    attract more highly qualified teachers to schools. Survey results also
    show

    that districts planned to spend much larger percentages of other federal,
    state, and local funds than Title II funds on authorized Title II
    activities. For example, an estimated 80 percent of the total funds all
    districts planned to spend on professional development came from other
    federal, state, and local funds. During our visits, both state and
    district officials said that most activities were a continuation of those
    begun in previous years.

    Page 5 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind In order to help states meet the
    requirement for highly qualified teachers by the end of the 2005- 06
    school year, we recommend that the Secretary of

    Education provide more information on methods to evaluate subject area
    knowledge of current teachers.

    Education provided written comments on a draft of this report including
    information on the guidance for special education teachers that we
    incorporated as appropriate. Additionally, Education indicated that it
    plans to take steps to address our recommendation. Our evaluation of their
    comments is in the report and Education*s comments are in appendix IV.

    Recently, a body of research has shown that quality teachers are
    significant to improving student performance. For example, a 1996 study by
    Sanders and Rivers 4 examined the effect of teacher quality on academic
    achievement and found that children assigned to effective teachers scored
    significantly higher in math than children assigned to ineffective
    teachers. Research has also shown that many teachers, especially those in
    highpoverty and rural districts, were not certified and lacked knowledge
    of the subjects they taught. For example, a report from The Education
    Trust found that in every subject area, students in high- poverty schools
    were more likely than other students to be taught by teachers without even
    a minor in the subjects they teach. 5 States are responsible for
    developing and administering their education

    systems and most have delegated authority for operating schools to local
    governments. States and local governments provide most of the money for
    public elementary and secondary education. In 2002, Education reported 6
    that 49 percent of the revenue for education was from state sources,

    44 percent from local sources, and 7 percent from federal sources.
    Therefore, it is mostly state and local funds that are used to cover most
    of the major expenses, such as teacher salaries, school buildings, and
    transportation. Although the autonomy of districts varies, states are

    4 Sanders, W. and Rivers, J., Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers
    on Future Student Academic Achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of
    Tennessee Value- Added Research and Assessment Center, November, 1996. 5
    Kati Haycock, Closing the Achievement Gap (The Education Trust, March
    2001). 6 National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of
    Education, The Condition of

    Education 2002.

    Background

    Page 6 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind responsible for monitoring and
    assisting their districts that, in turn, monitor and assist their schools.

    The federal government plays a limited but important role in education.
    The Department of Education*s mission is to ensure equal access to
    education and promote educational excellence throughout the nation by,
    among other things, supporting state and local educational improvement
    efforts, gathering statistics and conducting research, and helping to make
    education a national priority. Education provides assistance to help
    states

    understand the provisions or requirements of applicable laws, as well as
    overseeing and monitoring how states implement them. With the passage of
    the No Child Left Behind Act, on January 8, 2002, the federal government
    intensified its focus on teacher quality by establishing a requirement in
    the act for teachers across the nation to be *highly qualified* in every
    core subject they teach by the end of the 2005- 06 school year. 7 While
    the act contains specific criteria for highly qualified teachers by

    grade and experience levels, in general, the act requires that teachers:
    (1) have a bachelor*s degree, (2) have state certification, and (3)
    demonstrate subject area knowledge for each core subject they teach. Table
    1 lists the specific criteria by grade and experience levels as defined

    in the act. 7 Title I of NCLBA requires that every state that accepts
    Title I funds must ensure that all their teachers meet the requirement.
    All states and the District of Columbia have accepted the funds. Title I
    of NCLBA is designed to help educate disadvantaged children* those with
    low academic achievement attending schools serving high- poverty areas.
    Title I was appropriated funding of over $10 billion in fiscal year 2002.

    Page 7 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Table 1: Federal Criteria for a
    Highly Qualified Teacher Grade level and experience Federal criteria

    Any public elementary school or secondary school teacher. Has obtained
    full state certification as a teacher (including alternative
    certification) or

    passed the state teacher licensing examination and holds a license to
    teach in the state; however, when teaching in a charter school, a the
    teacher may not be certified or licensed if the state does not require it.
    Further, the teacher has not had certification or licensure requirements
    waived on emergency, temporary, or provisional basis. Elementary school
    teacher new to the profession. Holds at least a bachelor*s degree; and has
    passed a rigorous state test to demonstrate

    subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, math, and other
    areas of the basic elementary school curriculum (these tests may be
    included in state certification or licensing tests). Middle or secondary
    school teacher new to the profession. Holds at least a bachelor*s degree
    and has passed a rigorous state academic subject test in each of the
    academic subjects in which the teacher teaches (this may be the state

    certification or licensure test) or for each academic subject taught, the
    teacher has successfully completed an academic major, a graduate degree,
    coursework equivalent to an undergraduate academic major, or advanced
    certification or credentialing. Elementary, middle, or secondary teacher
    not new to the profession. Has met the above standards for new elementary,
    middle, and secondary school teachers

    or demonstrates competence in all the academic subjects in which the
    teacher teaches based on a high objective, uniform state standard of
    evaluation that (1) is set by the state for both grade appropriate
    academic subject matter knowledge and teaching skills; (2) is aligned with
    challenging state academic content and student academic achievement
    standards and developed in consultation with core content specialists,
    teachers, principals, and school administrators; (3) provides objective,
    coherent information about the teacher*s attainment of core content
    knowledge in the academic subjects a teacher teaches; (4) is applied
    uniformly to all teachers in the same academic subject and the same grade
    level throughout the state; (5) takes into consideration, but not be based
    primarily on, the time the teacher has been teaching in the academic
    subject; (6) is made

    available to the public upon request; and (7) may involve multiple,
    objective measures of teacher competency. Source: NCLBA, Pub. L. No. 107-
    110, section 9101( 2002).

    a Charter schools are public schools that are exempt from a variety of
    local and state regulations.

    For Title II, Part A of the act, Congress appropriated $2.85 billion to
    the Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund in fiscal year
    2002* about $740 million more than states received in fiscal year 2001
    under the previous two programs that it replaced* the Eisenhower
    Professional Development and Class Size Reduction programs. The purpose of
    the fund is to increase student academic achievement by providing support
    for states and districts to implement authorized activities cited in Title
    II to help them meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers. (See
    apps. II and III for state and district authorized activities.)

    States had to complete an application in order to receive funds. All
    applications were due by June 2002, and states received the funds by
    August 2002. The funds were to be distributed according to the formula
    defined in the act. Specifically, states and districts received an amount

    Page 8 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind equal to what they received for
    fiscal year 2001 under the two previous programs. The additional $740
    million was distributed to states and

    districts based on the number of families with children ages 5 to 17 who
    had incomes below the poverty threshold 8 and the relative population of
    children ages 5 to 17. The act requires states to ensure that districts
    target funds to those schools that have the highest number of teachers who
    are not highly qualified, the largest class sizes, or have been identified
    as in need of improvement.

    To help states understand and implement the new law, Education took a
    number of actions. The department established a Web site, developed an
    application package for the formula grant program, issued draft guidance,
    and held informational conferences for states and districts. Figure 1
    summarizes Education*s assistance to states.

    8 For 2002, the poverty threshold was $18,556 annually for a family of
    four.

    Page 9 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Figure 1: Education*s Assistance
    to States During Calendar Year 2002 In June 2002, Education issued draft
    guidance entitled *Improving Teacher Quality State Grants* which has
    served as Education*s principle form of

    assistance to states. In December of 2002, Education expanded and modified
    the draft guidance and issued final regulations on NCLBA that included
    some criteria related to the requirement for highly qualified teachers.
    Education does not plan to issue a final version of its draft guidance;
    instead, the draft includes the statement that it *should be viewed as a
    living document* that will be updated (1) as new questions arise, (2) if
    there is a change in the program statute that requires modification, or
    (3) when Education determines that more information would be helpful.

    Events Date

    NCLBA Web site went online April May

    Title II, Part A draft guidance issued First Annual Teacher Quality
    Evaluation Conference held, during which the draft guidance was discussed
    June

    Regional conferences held, during which Education officials reviewed the
    authorized activities listed in Title II, Part A and the criteria for
    highly qualified teachers October

    Title II, Part A draft guidance reissued Final Title I Regulations issued
    that provide highly qualified criteria for some categories of teachers
    including those who are currently teaching, newly hired and in alternative
    certification programs; with an appendix discussing requirements for
    special education teachers December

    Final Rule issued on how to apply for Title II, Part A Funds Source: GAO
    analysis.

    Page 10 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind In- depth discussions with
    officials in 8 states revealed that they could not determine the number of
    highly qualified teachers with accuracy because of one or more factors.
    All state officials said they did not know the

    criteria for some of their teachers because Education*s draft guidance
    changed and was not complete. Officials also did not have all the
    information they needed to develop methods to evaluate subject area
    knowledge for their current teachers. Accordingly, officials in all of the
    states interviewed and nearly all surveyed said they needed complete and
    clear guidance before they could comply with the law. Most of the states
    we visited also did not have data systems that could track teacher
    qualifications by core subject taught, which they would have to do to
    ensure that teachers were teaching only those subjects for which they had
    demonstrated subject area knowledge. Finally, many state officials we
    visited were reluctant to say that their certified teachers might not be
    highly qualified.

    During our review, Education changed its criteria for teachers who were in
    alternative certification programs and it reissued the draft guidance to
    qualify only teachers in certain programs. 9 The revised draft guidance
    stated that only those teachers enrolled in alternative certification
    programs with specific elements, such as teacher mentors, would be
    considered highly qualified. As a result, state officials had to recount
    this group of teachers by determining which alternative certification
    programs met the standard and then which teachers participated in those
    programs. In one state we visited, there were about 9,000 teachers in
    alternative certification programs and all were considered highly
    qualified until the revised draft guidance was issued. As of May 2003, an
    official said she was still trying to determine the number of teachers who
    were highly qualified. Also during our review, state officials were
    uncertain about the criteria for

    special education teachers. The draft guidance that was available during
    most of our visits did not address special education teachers. As a
    result, state officials could not know, for example, whether a special
    education 9 Many states have alternate routes to certification, referred
    to here as alternative

    certification programs, that allow an individual who has a bachelor*s
    degree from a college or university but who does not hold a degree in
    education, to receive a license to teach. Alternative certification
    programs range from those that place people in classrooms immediately to
    longer programs that delay placing people in classrooms until they have
    completed course work and received a mentor. While these programs vary
    within and among states, nearly all states have some type of alternative
    to the traditional path of

    majoring in education in order to become a teacher. Many States Were

    Uncertain about Numbers of Highly Qualified Teachers

    States Did Not Have Complete or Consistent Criteria to Determine the
    Number of Highly Qualified Teachers

    Page 11 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind teacher teaching math and
    reading would have to demonstrate subject area knowledge in both or
    neither of the subjects. For school year

    1999- 2000, special education teachers represented about 11 percent of the
    national teacher population, 10 so that, on average, state officials were
    unable to determine whether at least a tenth of their teachers met the
    highly qualified criteria. In some districts, special education teachers
    represented a larger portion of the workforce. For example, in one
    highpoverty urban district that we visited, special education teachers
    were 21 percent of their teachers. Education issued final Title I
    regulations on December 2, 2002, with an appendix that discussed the
    highly qualified requirements for special education teachers, among other
    things. However, the requirements are not discussed in the federal
    regulations nor are they discussed in the Title II draft guidance that was
    issued December 19, 2002. In addition, as of March 2003 some officials
    still had questions about the requirements. Perhaps because the guidance
    was issued in an appendix, it was not given the prominence needed to
    ensure that all officials would be aware of the information.

    Furthermore, neither Education*s draft guidance nor its regulations
    provided more information than the law to help state officials develop
    methods other than tests to evaluate their current teachers* subject area

    knowledge. The law allows states to use a *high, objective uniform state
    standard of evaluation* instead of a test. Education*s draft guidance
    repeated the language of the law, but provided no further interpretation.
    In addition, Education officials said they would review states*

    implementation of this provision when they conduct compliance reviews and
    then determine if the state evaluation is in compliance with the law.
    State officials said they needed more information, such as examples, to be
    confident of what Education would consider adequate for compliance with
    the law. State officials prefer evaluations instead of tests, according to
    an official at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), because
    they expect evaluations to be less expensive, more flexible, and more
    acceptable to teachers and unions. Such evaluations might be done through
    classroom observations, examination of portfolios, and peer reviews. In
    March 2003, CCSSO held a conference attended by about 25 state officials
    and several Education officials to discuss the implementation of state
    evaluations. At that conference, state officials said 10 National Center
    for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1990- 2000,

    *Number and Percent of Public School Special Education Teachers Who Teach
    Special Education Classes as Their Main Assignment or as Their Second
    Assignment* (2002).

    Page 12 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Education*s lack of specificity
    was particularly a problem for evaluating middle and high school teachers
    who had not demonstrated subject area knowledge. According to our survey
    data, 23 of 37 state officials said they

    would have difficulty fulfilling the highly qualified requirement for
    middle school teachers and 14 anticipated difficulty for high school
    teachers. According to district survey results, 20 percent anticipated
    difficulties in meeting the federal criteria for middle school teachers
    and 24 percent for high school teachers. Furthermore, as table 2 shows, a
    significantly higher percentage of high- poverty districts reported they
    would have greater difficulty fulfilling the requirement for teachers,
    especially at the middle and high school levels, than would low- poverty
    districts.

    Table 2: Estimated Percentages of Districts That Will Have Difficulty
    Meeting the Requirement for Highly Qualified Teachers by Grade Level and
    Poverty

    Type of school All districts High- poverty districts Low- poverty

    districts

    Elementary 7 18 4 Middle/ junior high 20 35 13 High 24 46 a 15 Source: GAO
    survey. a The percentage estimate for high schools in high- poverty
    districts has a 95 percent confidence

    interval of plus or minus 11 percentage points.

    State officials from the 8 states we visited said they could not determine
    the number of highly qualified teachers because the draft guidance was
    changing, not clear, or incomplete. Most, 32 of 37, state officials
    responding to our survey said they needed clear and timely guidance to
    help them meet the law.

    Officials from 7 of the 8 states we visited told us they did not have data
    systems that would allow them to track teachers* qualifications according
    to the federal criteria by every subject taught. Officials in one state
    projected that it would take at least 2 years before the state could
    develop and implement a system to track teachers by the federal criteria.
    State officials we visited said since their state certifications had not
    required some teachers to demonstrate subject area knowledge as required
    in the federal criteria, their information systems did not track such
    information. In written comments to our survey, for example, one official
    said, *Questions [related to counting teachers] are impossible to answer
    at this point because we not have finished the identification of those who
    need to be tested or evaluated.* Another respondent wrote that the data
    system State Data Systems Did

    Not Track Federal Criteria

    Page 13 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind *was designed years ago for
    state certification purposes*[ and] has not yet been updated to include
    all NCLBA criteria for teachers.* Other state

    officials also told us during our visits and through survey comments that
    their state certifications did not always require teachers to demonstrate
    subject area knowledge, so they did not have information on many teachers*
    qualifications for this criteria. Another state official wrote, *[ We] do
    not have data on teachers who were grand fathered in before 1991 or from
    out of state* who do not have subject matter competency.* Given the cost
    and time they thought it would take, some state officials expressed
    reservations about changing their data systems before Education provided
    complete guidance.

    Officials in 6 of the 8 states visited were reluctant to report their
    certified teachers might not be highly qualified. Three of these officials
    equated their state certification with the federal criteria for a highly
    qualified teacher even though they differed. They expressed a reluctance
    to say that their state certification requirements did not produce a
    highly qualified teacher even though the requirements did not match all
    the federal criteria, such as demonstration of subject area knowledge.
    Additionally, state officials expressed concern about the morale of
    teachers who are state certified but who would not meet the federal
    criteria. They were also concerned about how teachers and unions would
    react to testing already

    certified teachers. For example, in 5 states we visited officials told us
    that the unions in these states objected to the testing of certified
    teachers.

    Many state officials responding to our survey reported that teacher salary
    issues and teacher shortages were hindrances. State officials also
    identified other conditions such as few programs to support new teachers,
    lack of principal leadership, teacher training, and union agreements.

    District officials also cited teacher salary and teacher development
    issues as conditions that hindered them. Our district survey also shows
    that significantly more high- poverty districts reported some conditions
    as hindrances than low- poverty districts, and rural districts officials
    we visited cited hindrances specific to their small size and isolated
    locations. In our state survey, officials indicated that they needed more
    information from Education on professional development programs, best
    practices, and developing incentives for teachers to teach in high-
    poverty schools. Some State Officials

    Reluctant to Report Teachers Not Highly Qualified

    State and District Officials Reported Many Conditions as Hindrances to
    Meeting the Law

    Page 14 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Many state officials responding
    to our survey reported that pay issues hindered their ability to meet the
    requirement to have all highly qualified

    teachers. These issues included low salaries, lack of incentive pay
    programs, and a lack of career ladders for teachers. For example, 32 of 37
    state respondents said low teachers* salaries compared to other
    occupations was a hindrance. Officials we visited said that because of the
    low salaries it has been more difficult to recruit and retain some highly

    qualified teachers, especially math and science teachers. Several
    occupations are open to people with a bachelor*s degree in math and
    science, such as computer scientists and geologists. During the late
    1990s, there was an increase in demand for workers with math and science
    backgrounds, especially in information technology occupations. Between
    1994 and 2001, the number of workers employed in the mathematical and
    computer sciences increased by about 77 percent while the number of
    teachers increased by about 28 percent and total employment increased by
    about 14 percent. Furthermore, the math and science occupations have

    generally paid higher salaries than teaching positions. The U. S.
    Department of Labor*s Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate that in
    2001 average weekly earnings was $1,074 for mathematical and computer
    scientist positions and $730 for teachers. Some research shows that
    teacher salary is only one of many factors that influence teacher
    recruitment and retention. For example, the American Association of School
    Administrators explained the relationship between pay and working
    conditions in a report on higher pay in hard- to- staff schools. 11 The
    report stated *How money matters becomes much clearer if salary is viewed
    as just one of many factors that employees weigh when assessing the
    relative attractiveness of any particular job, such as opportunities for
    advancement, difficulty of the job, physical working conditions, length of
    commute, flexibility of working hours, and demands on personal time.
    Adjusting the salaries upward can compensate for less appealing aspects of
    a job; conversely, improving the relative attractiveness of jobs can
    compensate for lower salaries.*

    Many state survey respondents also cited teacher shortages as a hindrance.
    Specifically, 23 of the 37 state officials reported teacher shortages in
    high- need subject areas* such as, math, science, and special

    11 Cynthia Prince, Higher Pay in Hard to Staff Schools: The Case for
    Financial Incentives,

    American Association of School Administrators, June 2002. State Officials
    Cited

    Several Problems as Hindrances

    Page 15 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind education. 12 Additionally, 12
    state officials reported a shortage in the number of new highly qualified
    teachers in subject areas that are not high

    need, and 12 reported that having few alternative certification programs
    hindered their efforts. Education experts have debated the causes and
    effects of teacher shortages. Some experts argue that the problem is not
    in the number of teachers in the pool of applicants but in their
    distribution across the country. Others argue that poor retention is the
    real cause of teacher shortages. As for alternative certification
    programs, they were established to help overcome teacher shortages by
    offering other avenues for people to enter the teaching profession.
    However, in 1 state we visited officials said the success of these
    programs had been mixed because the

    content and length of the programs varied and some alternative
    certification teachers were better prepared than others.

    Although states have been facing teacher shortages in some subject areas
    for years, the new requirement for highly qualified teachers could make it
    even more difficult to fulfill the demand for teachers. The new law

    requires states to ensure that teachers only teach subjects for which they
    have taken a rigorous state test or evaluation, completed an academic
    major or graduate degree, finished course work equivalent to such degrees,
    or obtained advanced certification or credentialing in the subjects.
    Previously, states allowed teachers to teach subjects without such course
    work or credentials. From its Schools and Staffing Survey, 13 the National
    Center for Education Statistics, within the Department of

    Education, reported that in 1999- 2000, 14 to 22 percent of students in
    middle grades and 5 to 10 percent of high school students taking English,
    math, and science were in classes taught by teachers without a major,
    minor, or certification in the subjects they taught. Also, the report
    indicated that in the high school grades, 17 percent of students enrolled
    in physics and 36 percent enrolled in geology/ earth/ space science
    classes were taught by out- of- field teachers.

    Some states also cited several other conditions that might hinder their
    ability to meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers. For
    example,

    12 In this report, when discussing a shortage of teachers in the high need
    subject area of special education, we are referring to a shortage of
    persons qualified to be special education teachers to teach core subjects
    to children with disabilities as defined in Section 602 of the Individuals
    with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. 13 Department of
    Education, Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce:

    Prevalence of Out- of- Field Teaching 1987- 88 and 1999- 2000, Statistical
    Analysis Report,

    Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Education Statistics,
    2002.

    Page 16 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind 13 of the 37 state respondents
    reported few programs to support new teachers, 14 and 9 reported large
    classes as hindrances. State respondents

    also cited work environment factors such as teacher performance
    assessments, a lack of principal leadership, and lack of school supplies
    and equipment as hindrances. See table 3 for more information on
    hindrances reported by state officials.

    Additionally, 7 state officials who responded to our survey cited union
    agreements as a hindrance. Officials in 5 states that we visited said that
    the teachers* unions objected to testing currently certified teachers for
    subject area knowledge, and officials in 2 of these states also said that
    current teachers might leave rather than take a test. An official
    representing the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), an organization
    that represents teachers, school support staff, higher education faculty
    and staff, among others, said that AFT supports the federal definition for
    highly qualified teachers and incentive pay for teachers in high- need
    subject areas and that certified teachers should have a choice between
    taking a test and having a state evaluation to determine subject area
    knowledge. The National Education Association, an organization with
    members who work at every level of education, issued an analysis of the
    NCLBA that identified several changes it believes should be made in the
    law, including clarifying the requirement for highly qualified teachers.
    The union officials we spoke with from 2 states we visited said they also
    support the requirement for highly qualified teachers but expressed
    concerns about how their states would implement the legislation. One state
    union official said the current state process for certification requires
    multiple tests* more than is required in the legislation* and the union is
    concerned that the state will collapse the testing and streamline the
    teacher preparation process as part of its changes to meet the
    requirement. The union official from the other state said that his union
    was concerned because the state*s approach for implementing the
    requirement for highly qualified teachers has become a moving target and
    this causes frustration for teachers.

    14 As provided in Title II of NCLBA, programs to support new teachers
    include teacher mentoring, team teaching, reduced class schedules, and
    intensive professional development.

    Page 17 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Table 3: Number of States
    Reporting on Conditions That Hinder Their Ability to Meet the Requirement
    for Highly Qualified Teachers (Ranked from Highest to Lowest) Number of
    states

    reporting this condition to be a hindrance a (n= 37) Condition

    32 Teachers* salaries low compared to other occupations. 23

    Shortage in the number of teachers who meet the Title II requirement for
    highly qualified teachers in subject areas where there is high need. 21
    Teachers* salaries low compared to teachers elsewhere. 18 Lack of
    incentive pay programs. 17 Lack of a career ladder for teachers.

    14 Professional development programs not of sufficient duration to have an
    effect on teacher quality. 13 Few programs to support new teachers. 12 Few
    alternative certification programs.

    12 Shortage in the number of new teachers who meet the Title II

    requirement for highly qualified teachers in subject areas that are not
    high need. 12 School lacks supplies and equipment.

    11 Lack of leadership on the part of principals. 9 College of Arts and
    Science Departments do not work with college

    Education Departments to develop teacher preparation programs. 9 Large
    class sizes resulting in teacher retention problems.

    9 Many currently employed teachers do not meet the Title II

    requirement for highly qualified teachers in areas that are not high need.
    7 Teacher assessments not based on the Title II requirement for

    highly qualified teachers. 7 Weak training for teachers in the use of
    technology. 7 Union agreements inhibit implementing activities encouraged
    by

    Title II to develop highly qualified teachers. 7 Professional development
    programs not based on recent scientific

    research on teaching methods or subject matter. 4 State certification
    requirements not meeting the Title II requirement

    for highly qualified teachers. 3 Alternative certification programs not
    providing teachers with adequate teaching skills.

    3 Teacher preparation programs not aligned with state subject content
    standards. 3 State and local laws and regulations inhibit implementing
    activities

    encouraged by Title II to develop highly qualified teachers. 2 Teacher
    preparation programs not providing teachers with

    adequate subject matter expertise. Source: GAO survey. a These numbers
    include states that reported these conditions as a moderate, great, or
    very great hindrance.

    Page 18 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind School district estimates from
    our survey show that, similar to state respondents, salary issues hinder
    districts* efforts to meet the requirement

    for highly qualified teachers. Almost 60 percent of district officials
    cited low teacher salaries compared to other occupations as a hindrance,
    with a significantly higher number of high- poverty than low- poverty
    district

    officials reporting this as a hindrance. During our site visits to 4 rural
    districts, officials said that their salaries could not compete with
    salaries offered in other occupations and locations. One official said
    that pay in the rural districts was low compared to teacher salaries in
    surrounding states. Both state and district officials also said that these
    salary conditions affect the recruitment and retention of highly qualified
    teachers.

    Our survey estimates also show that conditions related to teacher
    development were hindering districts* ability to meet the highly qualified
    teacher requirement. The conditions reported by districts included (1)
    weak training for teachers in the use of technology (28 percent), (2) few
    alternative certification programs (18 percent), and (3) professional
    development programs that are not of sufficient duration to improve
    teacher quality (23 percent). Weak training programs can leave teachers
    unprepared to deal with all the challenges of teaching and lead to job
    dissatisfaction. Table 4 provides estimates of the percentages of

    districts reporting conditions that hinder their ability to meet the
    requirement for highly qualified teachers. School Districts Reported

    Hindrances Similar to Those Reported by States and More High- Poverty
    Districts Reported Certain Hindrances

    Page 19 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Table 4: Estimated Percentages
    of Districts Reporting on Conditions That Hinder Their Ability to Meet the
    Requirement for Highly Qualified Teachers (Ranked from Highest to Lowest)
    Percent of all

    districts reporting this condition to be a hindrance a Condition

    57 Teachers* salaries low compared to other occupations. 37 Teachers*
    salaries low compared to teachers elsewhere. 28 Training for teachers in
    the use of technology is weak. 25 Lack of incentive pay programs.

    23 Professional development programs not of sufficient duration to have an
    effect on teacher quality. 19

    Shortage in the number of teachers who meet the Title II requirement for
    highly qualified teachers in subject areas where there is high need.

    18 Teacher preparation programs not providing teachers with adequate
    subject matter expertise. 18 Few alternative certification programs.

    17 College of Arts and Science Departments not working with college
    Education Departments to develop teacher preparation programs.

    16 Alternative certification programs not providing teachers with adequate
    teaching skills. 16 Few programs to support new teachers. 16 Lack of a
    career ladder for teachers.

    16 Shortage in the number of new teachers who meet the Title II
    requirement for highly qualified teachers in low achieving schools. 15
    Teacher preparation programs not aligned with state subject content

    standards. 14 School lacks supplies and equipment.

    12 Teacher assessments not based on the Title II requirement for highly
    qualified teachers.

    10 Union agreements that inhibit implementing activities encouraged by
    Title II to develop highly qualified teachers.

    7 Lack of leadership on the part of principals. 7 Large class sizes
    resulting in teacher retention problems.

    7 Professional development programs not based on recent scientific
    research on teaching methods or subject matter. 7 State certification
    requirements not meeting the Title II requirement

    for highly qualified teachers. 6

    Many currently employed teachers not meeting the Title II requirement for
    highly qualified teachers in areas that are not high need.

    4 State and local laws and regulations inhibit implementing activities
    encouraged by Title II to develop highly qualified teachers.

    Source: GAO survey. a These percentages include districts that reported
    these conditions as a moderate, great, or very great hindrance.

    Page 20 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind While the ranking of most of the
    hindrances reported by districts and states were similar, three conditions
    were reported among the top third of hindrances for districts but among
    the bottom third for states. Specifically, these conditions were (1)
    alternative certification programs do not provide

    teachers with adequate teaching skills, (2) teacher preparation programs
    do not provide teachers with adequate subject matter expertise, and (3)
    training for teachers in the use of technology is weak. The first two of
    these conditions relate to programs that are usually responsibilities of
    the state departments of education. States or districts can address the
    third condition, technology training. These conditions indicate areas in
    which states and districts can work together to improve programs and help
    meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers.

    A significantly higher number of high- poverty districts than low- poverty
    districts identified some conditions as hindrances. As table 5 shows, in
    addition to teacher shortages and pay issues, a larger percentage of
    highpoverty districts cited few programs to support new teachers and few
    alternative certification programs, among others, as hindrances to meeting
    the requirement.

    Page 21 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Table 5: Estimated Percentages
    of High- and Low- Poverty Districts with Significant Differences in the
    Hindrances to Meeting the Requirement

    Condition Percent of high- poverty

    districts Percent of low- poverty

    districts

    Teachers* salaries are low compared to other occupations. 75 50 Teachers*
    salaries are low compared to teachers elsewhere. 57 33 Lack of incentive
    pay programs. 32 17 Few programs to support new teachers. 30 6 Shortage in
    the number of teachers who meet the Title II requirement for highly
    qualified teachers in subject areas where there is a high need. 29 13
    Shortage in the number of new teachers who meet the Title II requirement
    in low achieving schools. 26 10 Lack of career ladder for teachers. 25 8
    Few alternative certification programs. 24 11 Teacher preparation programs
    do not provide adequate subject matter expertise. 24 13

    Many currently employed teachers do no meet the Title II requirement in
    areas that are not high need. 13 4 Large class sizes resulting in teacher
    retention problems. 12 4 Lack of leadership on the part of principals. 12
    3 Source: GAO survey.

    Note: Each difference between high- and low- poverty districts in this
    table is significant at the 95 percent confidence interval.

    During our site visits, officials from high- poverty districts told us
    they had great difficulty retaining teachers. For example, officials in
    one district said that although the district provided training for new
    teachers in the skills they needed, these teachers became more marketable
    after they completed the training and often left for higher paying
    teaching positions. According to these officials, the schools in this
    district did not always benefit from the district*s training programs.
    High- poverty district officials also said they could not compete with
    surrounding, wealthier districts in teacher pay. Officials in these
    districts and at the American Association of School Administrators also
    said that some unions do not support the use of incentive pay for high-
    poverty schools because they believe that salary scales should be equal
    for all schools within a district.

    Rural district officials we visited and also those who provided survey
    comments said they faced unusual hindrances because some of them were very
    small, isolated, or had only one or two teachers in total at some schools.
    During our site visits, some officials from rural districts also said

    Page 22 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind that they were facing teacher
    shortages because not enough teachers were willing to teach in rural
    districts. For example, one official in a large, rural

    state said that the state had only one university, which makes it
    difficult for teachers to obtain further course work to meet the federal
    criteria for subject area knowledge. Since many teachers in this state*s
    rural districts had to teach more than one core subject, with limited
    access to subject area training, they may not meet the highly qualified
    criteria for all subjects they teach. One survey respondent also wrote,
    *Rural schools have to assign teachers to several subject areas at [the]
    secondary level. We do not have large numbers of students, and teachers
    have to wear more than one hat. Rural schools are also a long way from
    colleges and to require licensure in every subject they teach is
    ludicrous.* In a 2001 report

    to Congress, Education estimated that 84 percent of 4- year institutions
    would offer distance education courses 15 in 2002. Such courses may help
    address this hindrance.

    As districts work to address the conditions that affect their ability to
    meet the new federal requirement, they look to their state officials for
    guidance and technical assistance. In turn, states look to Education for
    help. Many of the hindrances that state and district officials reported
    related to conditions that they could address such as teachers* salaries,
    the number of alternative certification programs, and certification
    requirements. However, states indicated they needed some additional
    information and assistance from Education. At least half of the 37 state
    respondents reported needing (1) information or other assistance to meet
    the requirement that professional development programs be based on recent
    scientific research and be of sufficient duration to have an effect on
    teacher quality, (2) information on best practices in the area of teacher
    quality, and (3) assistance in developing incentives for teachers to teach
    in high- poverty schools. Education*s 2002- 07 strategic plan identifies
    several steps it will take to work with states. Specifically, the
    strategies listed under the plan*s goal for improving teacher and
    principal quality include supporting professional development in research-
    based instruction and encouraging innovative teacher compensation and
    accountability systems. Additionally, in December 2002, Education
    reorganized and established a new office to administer the Title II
    program.

    15 The Higher Education Act defines distance education as an educational
    process where the student is separated in time or place from the
    instructor. States Say They Need

    More Information from Education and Education Plans to Work with States on
    Some Issues

    Page 23 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind To help meet the requirement for
    highly qualified teachers, state officials planned to spend most of their
    Title II funds on professional development

    activities, and district officials planned to spend a majority of their
    Title II funds on recruitment and retention activities. State and district
    officials planned to spend much larger amounts of other federal, 16 state,
    and local funds than Title II funds on the activities authorized in the
    act. Generally,

    state and district officials told us they were continuing activities from
    previous years. The survey data also indicated high- poverty districts
    relied more on Title II funds for recruitment and retention activities
    than lowpoverty districts. In addition, while the act requires districts
    to target their Title II funds to schools that meet certain criteria,
    until district officials know the number of highly qualified teachers and
    where they are located, they cannot fully comply with this requirement.

    Generally, state educational agencies could use up to 2.5 percent of the
    state*s Title II funds for authorized state activities. 17 Twenty- four
    state officials responding to our survey planned to spend about 65 percent
    of their Title II funds on professional development activities to develop
    and support highly qualified teachers and principals. For example,
    professional development activities could help teachers enhance their
    subject area knowledge and complete state licensing requirements to meet
    the criteria

    for highly qualified teachers. During our site visits, state officials
    described their professional development activities as seminars,
    conferences, and various instructional initiatives. For example, in one
    state we visited, officials planned to hold a workshop to provide middle
    and high school math teachers with technology training so that they could
    incorporate interactive Web sites in their instruction. Generally, state
    officials said

    16 For example, districts must use 5 to 10 percent of their Title I- A
    funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for professional development
    activities to ensure that teachers become highly qualified. 17 State
    education agencies receive 5 percent of the total grant funds and can
    retain up to 1

    percent of these funds for administrative costs. Of the remaining funds,
    2. 5 percent must be spent on subgrants to eligible partnerships and the
    remaining funds are to be used for authorized activities. We grouped the
    Title II activities into five categories: (1)

    accountability, (2) certification, (3) professional development, (4)
    recruitment and retention, and (5) technical assistance. Appendix II lists
    all 18 activities. To Hel p Teachers Meet the Requirement

    States Planned to Spend Most Title II Funds on Professional Development
    Activities, and Districts Will Spend Most on Recruitment and Retention
    Activities

    States Planned to Spend the Majority of Title II Funds on Professional
    Development

    Page 24 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind they planned to use Title II
    funds to continue activities that were begun in previous years.

    While professional development activities were to receive the largest
    share of funds, survey results show state officials planned to also spend
    Title II funds on other activities cited in the act. Officials in 28
    states planned to spend about 18 percent on technical assistance
    activities, such as providing information about the requirement for highly
    qualified teachers to districts via the state Web site. Certification
    activities received the

    smallest percentage of Title II funds* 2 percent. These activities include
    efforts to promote certification reciprocity with other states and efforts
    to establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for certification.
    (See fig. 2.)

    Figure 2: Planned Spending of Title II Funds by Reporting States State
    officials reported they planned to spend much larger amounts of other
    federal and state funds than Title II funds on nearly all of the
    authorized Title II activities. For example, states reported that 85
    percent of the total funds they planned to spend on professional
    development activities would come from other federal and state funds. The
    one exception was technical assistance activities, where Title II funds
    Title II Funds Are a Small

    Part of Total Funds

    2%

    Certification

    6% 9%

    18% 65%

    Recruitment and retention Accountability Technical assistance

    Professional development Source: The 37 states that responded to GAO
    survey.

    Page 25 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind accounted for 77 percent of the
    total. (See fig. 3.) Providing technical assistance to districts is an
    important role for states. In our visits to

    districts, several officials said they needed more information and
    technical assistance from their state to understand and implement the law.

    Figure 3: Sources of Funds for Planned Spending by States on Title II
    Activities

    Districts received about 95 percent of their state*s Title II funds for
    authorized activities. 18 Based on our survey, district officials planned
    to spend an estimated 66 percent of their Title II funds on recruitment
    and retention activities and 34 percent on activities related to
    professional development. Class size reduction activities were the largest
    funded recruitment and retention activity and accounted for 56 percent of
    total Title II funds. In a majority of our site visits we learned that
    district officials used these funds to hire additional highly qualified
    teachers to

    18 Districts are to spend their Title II funds on 9 authorized activities
    that we grouped into 2 categories: (1) professional development and (2)
    recruitment and retention. Appendix III lists all 9 activities. Districts
    Planned to Spend a Majority of Their Title II

    Funds on Recruitment and Retention Activities

    Percent of planned spending on activities 0 10

    20 30

    40 50

    60 70

    80 90

    100 Accountability

    6 94

    5 95

    15 85

    13 87

    77 23 Title II funds Other federal and state funds

    Certification Professional development

    Recruitment and retention

    Technical assistance

    Source: The 37 states responding to GAO survey.

    Page 26 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind continue activities developed
    under the previous Class Size Reduction Program. Class size reduction
    activities may help improve teacher

    retention because, according to an Education report, 19 teachers in small
    classes spend less time on classroom management and more time providing
    instruction, thus raising the teacher*s level of job satisfaction. While
    class size reduction activities can be seen as a retention tool, they may
    also increase the number of highly qualified teachers that need to be
    hired. This may be a problem for some districts and states. In fact,
    officials

    in one large state we visited said class size reduction activities
    presented a challenge by increasing the number of classes not being taught
    by a highly qualified teacher.

    Additionally, district officials in our site visits said that they
    implemented or planned to implement a broad range of professional
    development activities. For example, one district had a teacher- coach
    program for its math and science teachers. This program used senior
    teachers as full- time coaches to assist less experienced teachers with
    instructional strategies and curriculum preparation. Other programs
    focused on math and reading, varied instructional strategies for different
    types of students, and use of technology. District officials in our site
    visits said most activities were in place prior to the act.

    While all districts spent more on recruitment and retention activities
    than professional development, there were differences between high- and
    lowpoverty districts. From our survey, we estimate that high- poverty
    districts planned to spend a significantly larger percentage of Title II
    funds on recruitment and retention and a smaller percentage on
    professional development activities than low- poverty districts. (See
    table 6.)

    Table 6: Estimated Percent of Spending Title II Funds by Activities for
    All Districts, High- Poverty Districts, and Low- Poverty Districts

    Activity All districts All high- poverty districts All low- poverty

    districts

    Professional development activities 34 23 41 Recruitment and retention/
    class size reduction 66 77 59 Source: GAO survey.

    19 U. S. Department of Education, The Class- Size Reduction Program:
    Boosting Student Achievement in Schools Across the Nation, A First- Year
    Report, September 2000.

    Page 27 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Note: Each difference between
    high- and low- poverty districts in this table is significant at the 95
    percent confidence interval.

    From our survey, we estimated all districts planned to spend much larger
    percentages of other federal, state, and local funds than Title II funds
    on authorized activities but in high- poverty districts the share of the
    funds was lower. Overall, 80 percent of the total funds districts planned
    to spend on professional development activities came from other federal,
    state, and local funds. Title II funds represented a larger percentage of
    total funds spent on authorized activities for high- poverty districts
    than low- poverty districts. For example, in high- poverty districts Title
    II funds were 48 percent of the funds they planned to spend for
    recruitment and retention activities compared to 15 percent in low-
    poverty districts. There may be several reasons for these differences. For
    example, Title II allocated more funds to those districts with more high-
    poverty families, and low- poverty districts may have had more local funds
    to contribute to the total. Figure 4 shows the Title II percentage of
    total funds for professional development activities and recruitment and
    retention activities, for all, high- poverty, and low- poverty districts.
    A majority of district officials said they planned to fund activities that
    were begun in previous years. Districts Planned to Spend

    Larger Amounts of Other Funds and Title II Funds Are a Larger Percentage
    of Total for High- Poverty Districts

    Page 28 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Figure 4: Estimated Spending of
    Title II Funds as a Percentage of Total Funds by Activities for All
    Districts, High- Poverty Districts, and Low- Poverty Districts

    We estimated about one- third of all districts (34 percent) were targeting
    their Title II funds as required by the act. The act requires districts to
    target funds to those schools (1) with the highest number of teachers who
    are not highly qualified, (2) with the largest class sizes, or (3) in need
    of improvement. There was little difference between the percentages of
    high- and low- poverty districts that targeted their funds or between
    urban and

    rural districts. For example, 29 percent of high- poverty districts and 30
    percent of low- poverty districts reported targeting some of their Title
    II funds. Additionally, some district officials we visited said they did
    not

    target funds according to the criteria listed in the act but that they
    targeted funds in other ways such as to support math and science programs
    for teachers and for administrative leadership programs. It may be too
    early for district officials to fully implement this targeting
    requirement. Until they know the true number of teachers who are highly
    qualified, they cannot target the schools with the highest numbers of
    teachers who are not highly qualified. Approximately One- Third

    of All Districts Were Targeting Funds

    Title II percentage of total funds 0 5

    10 15

    20 25

    30 35

    40 45

    50 Professional development Recruitment

    and retention

    All districts All high- poverty districts All low- poverty districts 20 21

    15 28

    48 15 Source: GAO district survey.

    Page 29 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Education officials have had to
    interpret and help states implement many new requirements established by
    the NCLBA, including the highly qualified

    teacher requirement. During this first year of implementation, state
    officials were still determining how they could assess whether their
    teachers met all the criteria and identifying steps they needed to take to
    meet the new requirement. Generally, state and district officials
    continued to be challenged by many longstanding hindrances and they
    continued to fund activities from previous years.

    Education issued regulations and draft guidance to help states begin to
    implement the requirement for highly qualified teachers and has plans to
    help states with some of their challenges. However, state officials need
    more assistance from Education, especially about methods to evaluate

    current teachers* subject area knowledge. Without this information state
    officials are unsure how to assess whether their current teachers meet the
    highly qualified requirement. This would also help them accurately
    determine the number of teachers who are highly qualified and take
    appropriate steps, such as deciding on which activities to spend Title II
    funds and targeting Title II funds to schools with the highest numbers of
    teachers who are not highly qualified. It is important that states have
    the information they need as soon as possible in order to take all
    necessary actions to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified by the
    2005- 06 deadline.

    In order to assist states* efforts to determine the number of highly
    qualified teachers they have and the actions they need to take to meet the
    requirement for highly qualified teachers by the end of the 2005- 06
    school year, we recommend that the Secretary of Education provide more
    information to states. Specifically, information is needed about methods
    to evaluate subject area knowledge of current teachers.

    We received written comments on a draft of this report from Education.
    These comments are reprinted in appendix IV. In response to our
    recommendation related to requirements for special education teachers,
    Education stated that the appendix of the Title I Final Regulations
    clarifies how the highly qualified requirements apply to special education
    teachers. Consequently, we modified the report to reflect this information
    and we withdrew this recommendation.

    Education indicated it plans to take steps to address our recommendation
    on the need for information about methods to evaluate subject area
    Conclusions

    Recommendation for Executive Action

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    Page 30 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind knowledge of current teachers.
    Education stated that it will continue to work with state officials and
    will actively share promising strategies and

    models for *high objective uniform State standard of evaluation* with
    states to help them develop ways for teachers to demonstrate subject area
    competency.

    Also, Education commented that it views a *one* size fits all* approach to
    addressing many of the issues raised in the report as undesirable because
    states and districts will have to meet the requirement highly qualified
    teachers in a manner that is compatible with their teacher certification,
    assessment and data collection processes. Education stated that it will
    provide assistance wherever possible to help states meet the requirement.
    We generally agree that this is an appropriate approach.

    Additionally, Education provided technical comments and we made changes as
    appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate
    congressional

    committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.
    Copies will be made available to other interested parties upon request. In
    addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO*s Web site at
    http:// www. gao. gov. If you have any questions about this report, please
    call me at (202) 512- 7215. Key contributors are listed in appendix V.

    Marnie S. Shaul, Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 31 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left
    Behind In conducting our work, we administered a Web survey to the 50
    states and the District of Columbia, and a separate Web survey to a
    nationally

    representative sample of 830 school districts, that included strata for
    highpoverty, low- poverty, rural, and urban districts. The response rate
    for the state survey was 71 percent and for the district survey 62
    percent. The surveys were conducted between December 4, 2002, and April 4,
    2003. We

    analyzed the survey data and identified significant results. See figure 5
    for a geographic display of responding and nonresponding states.

    Figure 5: State Survey Respondents

    The study population for the district survey consisted of public school
    districts contained in the Department of Education*s Core of Common Data
    (CCD) Local Education Agency (LEA) file for the 2000- 2001 school year.
    From this, we identified a population of 14,503 school districts in the 50
    states and the District of Columbia. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    Source: The 37 states that responded to GAO survey. Did not complete
    survey (14)

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 32 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left
    Behind Sample Design. The sample design for this survey was a stratified
    sample of 830 LEAs in the study population. This sample included the 100
    largest

    districts and a stratified sample of the remaining districts with strata
    defined by community type 1 (city, urban, and rural) and by the district*s
    poverty level. 2 Table 7 summarizes the population, sample sizes, and
    response rates by stratum.

    Table 7: Population and Sample by Stratum Stratum number Description
    Districts in population Districts in sample Districts

    responding Response rate

    1 Largest 100 districts 100 100 64 64% 2 City, low poverty 648 120 76 63%
    3 City, high poverty 210 94 35 37% 4 Urban, low poverty 5,264 135 87 64% 5
    Urban, high poverty 648 120 79 66% 6 Rural, low poverty 6,515 135 87 64% 7
    Rural, high poverty 1,118 126 83 66%

    Total 14,503 830 511 62%

    Source: GAO analysis of Education*s 2000- 1 CCD data Estimates. All
    estimates produced from the district sample in this report are for a
    target population defined as all public school districts in the 50 states
    and the District of Columbia for the 2002- 03 school year. Estimates to
    this target population were formed by weighting the survey data to account
    for both the sample design and the response rates for each stratum. For
    our estimates of high- and low- poverty districts, we defined high-
    poverty districts as those with participation rates in the free and

    1 *City* is defined as a central city of Consolidated Metropolitan
    Statistical Area (CMSA) or as a central city of a Metropolitan Statistical
    Area (MSA). *Urban* refers to Urban Fringe (an incorporated place, Census
    Designated Place, or nonplace territory within a CMSA or MSA of a city and
    defined as urban by the Census Bureau), to a large town (an

    incorporated place or Census Designated Place with a population greater
    than or equal to 25,000 and located outside a CMSA or MSA), or to an
    incorporated place or Census Designated Place with a population less than
    25,000 and greater than 2, 500 located outside a CMSA or MSA. A *rural
    community* is any incorporated place, Census Designated Place, or nonplace
    territory designated as rural by the Census Bureau.

    2 Poverty level was not available on the CCD data files; however, as a
    proxy for poverty, we stratified based on participation in the free/
    reduced student meals program. For sample selection, high- poverty
    districts are those districts having at least 60 percent participation

    in free/ reduced meals programs. Less than 60 percent participation in
    this program identifies a district as a low- poverty district for
    stratification purposes.

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 33 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left
    Behind reduced meals program of 70 percent or above. Low- poverty
    districts were defined as those with free and reduced meals program rates
    at 30 percent

    and below. One of the advantages of this approach was that it allowed for
    a sufficient number of cases in each category to conduct statistical
    analyses.

    Sampling Error. Because we surveyed a sample of school districts, our
    results are estimates of a population of school districts and thus are
    subject to sampling errors that are associated with samples of this size
    and type. Our confidence in the precision of the results from this sample
    is expressed in 95 percent confidence intervals. The 95 percent confidence
    intervals are expected to include the actual results for 95 percent of the

    samples of this type. We calculated confidence intervals for our study
    results using methods that are appropriate for a stratified, probability
    sample. For the percentages presented in this report, we are 95 percent
    confident that the results we would have obtained if we had studied the
    entire study population are within plus or minus 10 percentage points of
    our results, unless otherwise noted. For example, we estimate that 34
    percent of the districts target at least some funds to specific types of
    schools. The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate would be no
    wider than plus or minus 10 percent, or from 24 percent to 44 percent.

    Nonsampling Error. In addition to these sampling errors, the practical
    difficulties in conducting surveys of this type may introduce other types
    of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
    questions may be misinterpreted, the respondents* answers may differ from
    those of districts that did not respond, or errors could be made in keying
    questionnaire data. We took several steps to reduce these errors.

    To minimize some of these errors, the state and district questionnaires
    were each pretested three times to ensure that respondents would
    understand the questions and that answers could be provided. To increase
    the response rate, sampled districts received two calls encouraging them
    to complete and return the questionnaire.

    We also performed an analysis to determine whether some sample- based
    estimates compared favorably with known population values. 3 We performed
    this analysis for 12 estimates providing information on

    3 This was possible because the CCD population file contains certain data
    elements for the universe of districts from which we drew our sample.

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 34 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left
    Behind students, teachers, number of schools, and administrators that
    covered major segments those groups. For example, we did an analysis on
    all fulltime

    equivalent classroom teachers but not on teachers of ungraded students,
    which is a very small proportion of all teachers. We used these values for
    the 511 sample respondents to produce sample estimates to the total
    population of all 14,503 districts. These estimated values, their
    associated 95 percent confidence intervals, and their true population
    values are presented in table 8.

    Table 8: Sample Estimates Compared to Population Values Description of
    estimate

    Mean per district estimated from survey

    respondents Lower bound of 95 percent confidence

    interval Upper bound

    of 95 percent confidence interval Mean per district

    for population

    Students with Individualized Education Programs 455.6 391.8 519.5 424.8
    Full- time equivalent classroom teachers 186.0 157.8 214.2 180.8 Students
    in Pre- Kindergarten to 12th grade 3,306.8 2, 851.2 3, 762.3 3, 168.1
    Total diploma recipients 198.5 169 227.9 201.4 Limited English proficient
    students 268.9 210.5 327.3 340.9 Schools in district 6.7 5. 9 7.5 6. 2
    Local Education Authority administrators 4.2 3. 6 4.8 3. 7 LEA support
    staff 11.8 9. 8 13.9 10.9 School administrators 10.4 8. 9 11.9 9. 7 School
    administrative support staff 17.3 14.6 19.9 16.5 Student support services
    staff 10.8 9. 3 12.2 10.6 Instructional coordinators and supervisors 2.9
    2. 2 3.6 2. 5 Source: GAO analysis of Education*s 2000- 1 CCD data Note:
    LEAs are also known as school districts.

    For 11 out of the 12 estimates we examined, the population value falls
    within the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimate, thus providing
    some indication that respondents to this survey reflect the

    12 characteristics we examined in the population. Although these
    characteristics were selected because they might be related to other
    characteristics of district teachers and district administration, we do
    not know the extent to which the survey respondents would reflect the
    population characteristics for the specific questions asked on our survey.
    For example, we are not certain whether districts responding to the survey
    were further along in the implementation of Title II requirements than the
    districts that did not respond.

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 35 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left
    Behind Our sample was not designed to produce geographical area estimates,
    and we did not explicitly stratify our sample by state or region. However,
    our

    sample was selected nationally and all regions are represented in our
    sample. The following table summarizes sample size and responses for 10
    regions.

    Table 9: Population and Sample by Region Region number State in each
    region Districts in population Districts in sample Districts

    responding

    1 CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT 1,079 42 25 2 NY and NJ 1,281 49 27 3 DE, DC,
    MD, PA, VA, and WV 731 41 26 4 AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, and TN 1,049
    113 76 5 IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI 3,413 179 111 6 AR, LA, NM, OK, and TX
    2,061 144 100 7 IA, KS, MO, and NE 1,744 54 30 8 CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, and
    WY 1,111 42 32 9 AZ, CA, HI, and NV 1,375 135 62 10 AK, ID, OR, and WA 659
    31 22

    Total 14,503 830 511

    Source: Note: for this table, we adopted the Department of Education*s
    region definitions as provided at

    http:// www. ed. gov/ offices/ OIIA/ Regions. On the basis of the national
    distribution of our sample and on the result of our comparison of a set of
    survey estimates to known population values from the CCD file, we chose to
    include the survey results in our report and to produce sample based
    estimates to the total population of school districts in our study
    population.

    We chose not to report the survey responses to questions asking about the
    number of highly qualified teachers because other information from the
    survey and our in- depth discussions with officials during our site visits
    indicated that the respondents could not accurately answer the question.
    For example, three of five officials who completed the survey but did not
    answer this question commented in the survey that they could not answer
    because they could not count the number of teachers. Additionally, one
    official who reported that 100 percent of the teachers were highly
    qualified and another who reported 94 percent, also commented that they
    were unable to count their teachers. During our site visits we learned
    that officials did not have know the criteria for some groups of teachers,
    did not have data systems to allow them to track teachers by class and

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 36 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left
    Behind therefore, could not accurately determine how many teachers were
    highly qualified.

    We also visited 8 states with a range of characteristics that might affect
    their meeting Title II requirement for highly qualified teachers. Those
    states were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, North
    Carolina, Delaware, and Wyoming. We visited and interviewed officials in 2
    districts in each state, one of which was a high- poverty district, and
    one school in each district. We interviewed Department of Education
    officials,

    and officials and representatives from several professional organizations.
    We also reviewed the legislation, the regulations, and guidance as well as
    related reports and other relevant documents. We conducted our work
    between July 2002 and May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards. Other Methodology

    Appendix II: Activities on Which States Can Spend Title II, Part A Funds

    Page 37 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Table 10 lists our summaries of
    the authorized activities on which states can spend Title II funds and
    shows the five categories we used to group

    them.

    Table 10: Title II, Part A State Activities Category Activity

    Accountability 1. Developing systems to measure the effectiveness of
    professional development programs and strategies to document improvements
    in students* academic achievement. 2. Ensuring that teachers use
    challenging state academic content standards, assessments, and

    student achievement standards to improve their teaching practices and
    their students* achievement. Certification 3. Reforming teacher and
    principal certification. 4. Reforming tenure and implementing tests for
    subject matter knowledge.

    5. Promoting license and certification reciprocity agreements with other
    states for teachers and principals. 6. Providing programs that establish,
    expand, or improve alternative routes for state certification,

    especially for highly qualified individuals in the areas of mathematics
    and science. Professional development 7. Conducting programs that provide
    support to teachers, such as those that provide teacher mentoring

    and use assessments that are consistent with student academic achievement
    standards. 8. Providing professional development for teachers and
    principals. 9. Developing or assisting local educational agencies (LEAs)
    in developing and using, proven

    innovative strategies for intensive professional development programs that
    are both cost effective and easily accessible. 10. Encouraging and
    supporting the training of teachers and administrators to integrate
    technology into

    curricula and instruction, including training to improve their ability to
    use data to improve their teaching. 11. Providing assistance to teachers
    to enable them to meet certification, licensing, or other Title II
    requirements needed to become highly qualified.

    Recruitment and retention 12. Developing or assisting LEAs to develop,
    merit- based performance systems and strategies that provide pay
    differentials and bonus pay for teachers in academic subjects in which
    there is high need. 13. Developing projects and programs to encourage men
    to become elementary teachers. 14. Establishing and operating a statewide
    clearinghouse and programs for the recruitment, placement,

    and retention of teachers. 15. Assisting LEAs and schools in recruiting
    and retaining highly qualified teachers, including

    specialists in core subjects. 16. Developing or assisting LEAs to develop,
    teacher advancement initiatives that promote professional

    growth, and emphasize multiple career paths and pay differentiation.
    Technical assistance 17. Fulfilling the state agency*s responsibility to
    properly and efficiently carry out the administration of

    programs, including providing technical assistance to LEAs. 18. Assisting
    LEAs to develop and implement professional development programs and school
    leadership academies for principals and superintendents. Source: NCLBA
    Pub. L. No. 107- 110, section 2113 (2002).

    Appendix II: Activities on Which States Can Spend Title II, Part A Funds

    Appendix III: Activities on Which Districts Can Spend Title II, Part A
    Funds

    Page 38 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Table 11 lists our summaries of
    the authorized activities on which districts can spend Title II funds and
    shows the two categories we used to group

    them.

    Table 11: Title II, Part A District Activities Category Activity

    Professional development 1. Providing professional development activities
    for teachers and principals that improve their knowledge of their core
    subjects and effective instructional strategies. 2. Carrying out
    professional development activities

    designed to improve the quality of principals and superintendents . 3.
    Carrying out teacher advancement initiatives to

    promote professional growth and to emphasize multiple career paths and pay
    differentiation. 4. Carrying out programs and activities that are designed

    to improve the quality of teachers, such as professional development
    programs, merit pay programs, and testing teachers in the subjects they
    teach. Recruitment and retention 5. Developing and implementing mechanisms
    to assist

    schools in effectively recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers
    and principals. 6. Developing and implementing initiatives to retain

    highly qualified teachers and principals, particularly in schools with a
    high percentage of low- achieving students; including programs that
    provide teacher mentoring and incentives. 7. Carrying out programs and
    activities related to

    exemplary teachers. 8. Developing and implementing initiatives to assist

    schools in recruiting and hiring teachers, including providing financial
    incentives, and establishing programs that train and hire special
    education and other teachers, recruit qualified professionals from other
    fields, and provide increased opportunities for minorities, individuals
    with disabilities and others. 9. Hiring highly qualified teachers in order
    to reduce class

    size, particularly in the early grades. Source: NCLBA Pub. L. No. 107-
    110, section 2123 (2002).

    Appendix III: Activities on Which Districts Can Spend Title II, Part A
    Funds

    Appendix IV: Comments from the U. S. Department of Education Page 39 GAO-
    03- 631 No Child Left Behind Appendix IV: Comments from the U. S.
    Department of Education

    Appendix IV: Comments from the U. S. Department of Education Page 40 GAO-
    03- 631 No Child Left Behind

    Appendix IV: Comments from the U. S. Department of Education Page 41 GAO-
    03- 631 No Child Left Behind

    Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    Page 42 GAO- 03- 631 No Child Left Behind Carolyn M. Taylor (202) 512-
    2974 or taylorcm@ gao. gov Mary E. Roy (202) 512- 7072 or roym@ gao. gov
    In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

    important contributions to this report: Susan Higgins, Anjali Tekchandani,
    David Garten, Joel Grossman, Richard Kelley, Mark Ramage, Minnette
    Richardson, Susan Bernstein, and Jeff Edmondson. Appendix V: GAO Contacts
    and Staff

    Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments

    (130144)

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

    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 Test i mony Order by Mail or Phone

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Public Affairs
    *** End of document. ***