Troops-To-Teachers: Program Brings More Men and Minorities to the
Teaching Workforce, but Education Could Improve Management to
Enhance Results (01-MAR-06, GAO-06-265).
With the 2002 enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA),
GAO was mandated to review the Troops-to-Teachers program, which
provides financial assistance and counseling to help military
personnel obtain their teacher licenses, especially in priority
subject areas, such as math and science, and find employment in
high-need districts and schools, as well as public charter
schools. The U.S. Department of Education oversees the program,
which received nearly $15 million in fiscal year 2004. This
report identifies (1) the number and characteristics of program
participants and factors affecting participation; (2) the
recruitment and retention of participants in high-need districts
and priority subject areas; and (3) the steps Education has taken
to facilitate program management.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-265
ACCNO: A48018
TITLE: Troops-To-Teachers: Program Brings More Men and
Minorities to the Teaching Workforce, but Education Could Improve
Management to Enhance Results
DATE: 03/01/2006
SUBJECT: Education program evaluation
Employee retention
Employment assistance programs
Military personnel
Personnel recruiting
Professional certification
Program management
School districts
Statistical data
Teacher education
Teachers
Diversity
Defense Activity for Non-Traditional
Education Support
DOD Troops to Teachers Program
******************************************************************
** 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-06-265
* Results in Brief
* Background
* The 3,875 Troops Documented as Recent Hires Have Contributed
* The Program Brought Males and Minorities to the Teaching Pro
* Barriers to Participation Include Ongoing Military Deploymen
* In Recent Years, Seven States Encompassed over Half the Teac
* Most Funded Teachers Have Been Recruited and Retained by Dis
* Most Funded Teachers Worked in Schools Serving Large Percent
* Over 75 Percent of Funded Teachers Continued Teaching in Dis
* About One-Third of Teachers Hired from the Program Reported
* Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Program Management but
* Education Has Better Defined High-Need Districts but Has Not
* Education Lacks Controls to Ensure Effective Allocation of P
* Education Has Not Made Efforts to Coordinate Program Adminis
* Conclusions
* Recommendations for Executive Action
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* GAO Contact
* Acknowledgments
* GAO's Mission
* Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* Order by Mail or Phone
* To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* Congressional Relations
* Public Affairs
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Committees
GAO
March 2006
TROOPS-TO- TEACHERS
Program Brings More Men and Minorities to the Teaching Workforce, but Education
Could Improve Management to Enhance Results
GAO-06-265
TROOPS-TO-TEACHERS
Program Brings More Men and Minorities to the Teaching Workforce, but Education
Could Improve Management to Enhance Results
What GAO Found
The 3,875 troops who were documented as having been hired through the
program between the enactment of NCLBA in 2002 and the close of the
2004-2005 school year contributed to gender and racial diversity in the
teaching workforce. Over 80 percent of Troops teachers are male and over
25 percent are African American-characteristics that differ from the new
teacher population overall. However, participation has recently decreased
and hiring has been geographically concentrated. The majority of the
program's teachers hired from school years 2001-2002 through 2004-2005
were employed in seven states.
Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program between
the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, were placed in districts
designated as high-need on the basis of serving children who qualify for
federal assistance. About 90 percent of these funded participants
continued teaching in high-need districts during their second year, and
over 75 percent of the original group taught in high-need districts for a
third year. About onethird of Troops hired during this period reported
teaching in the priority areas of math, science, special education, or
vocational education.
Percentage of Hired Teachers Reporting Subject Areas Taught between the
Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005
3%
teaching multiple priority subjects
5%
teaching vocational education
7%
teaching science
9%
teaching math
11%
teaching special education
28%
not reported
37%
teaching other subject areas
Source: GAO analysis of DANTES' administrative records.
Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but has not
effectively coordinated resources with another teacher recruitment program
also targeting military personnel. While Education has developed a draft
work plan for Troops-to-Teachers and improved the definition of a
high-need district for eligibility purposes, it has not assessed the data
it uses to make high-need school determinations. Further, it disbanded a
teacher policy group that once provided a forum for department managers to
discuss recruitment and retention initiatives.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3 Background 5 The 3,875 Troops Documented as Recent
Hires Have Contributed
to Diversity in the Teaching Workforce, but Participation Has
Recently Decreased and Is Geographically Concentrated 11 Most Funded
Teachers Have Been Recruited and Retained by
Districts Designated as High-Need, and about One-Third
Reported Teaching in Priority Subject Areas 18 Education Has Taken Steps
to Improve Program Management but
Has Not Effectively Coordinated Program Administration with
Related Initiatives 23 Conclusions 29 Recommendations for Executive Action
30 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products
Tables
Table 1: Financial Assistance Provided through the Troops-to-
Teachers Program 7 Table 2: Definitions of High-Need Schools and High-Need
Districts 9 Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of Teachers from the
Program Hired between the Enactment of NCLBA and
June 30, 2005 12 Table 4: Criteria and Data Sources Used to Support the
Designation
of High-Need Schools and Districts 25 Table 5: Selected Department of
Education Activities to Facilitate
Entrance into the Teaching Profession 28
Figures
Figure 1: Key Legislative and Regulatory Changes in the Troops-to-
Teachers Program 8
Figure 2: Number of Troops-to-Teachers Participants Hired by
State, July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2005 16
Figure 3: Concentration of Troops Hired through the Program
between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005,
Relative to the Location of Major Military Installations, by
County 17
Figure 4: Types of Financial Assistance Received by Program
Participants Hired between the Enactment of NCLBA and
June 30, 2005 19
Figure 5: Percentage of Hired Teachers Reporting Subject Areas
Taught between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30,
2005 22
Abbreviations
DANTES Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support
DOD Department of Defense
IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
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. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
March 1, 2006
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi Chairman The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions United States Senate
The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon Chairman The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education and the Workforce House of
Representatives
Approximately 3 million teachers work in public and private elementary and
secondary schools across the country, but school districts still face
difficulty recruiting and retaining highly qualified teaching
professionals. In 1992, when the shortage of math and science teachers was
increasing and the military forces were undergoing a significant reduction
in personnel, Congress authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to
oversee a new national Troops-to-Teachers program designed to help
separated members of the military obtain their teaching credentials and
teach in school districts with large low-income populations and a shortage
of teachers in priority subject areas, such as math and science. Since
Troops-to-Teachers' inception, more than 8,400 program participants
reported that they were hired as elementary and secondary school teachers,
with about half of those entering the profession since 2002.
Funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program has varied over time. In fiscal
year 2003, the program received a $29 million appropriation, while more
recently, in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the appropriation held steady at
nearly $15 million. Each year, some funds obligated to Troops-to-Teachers
are used to provide direct financial assistance in the form of stipends
and bonuses to attract and retain participants. Dollars not allocated
toward financial assistance fund (1) the centralized administration of the
program by personnel in the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education
Support (DANTES)-a DOD unit that operates the program and provides members
of the military with services, such as education-related counseling and
distance learning courses-and (2) the local counseling and placement
assistance that Troops-to-Teachers' state placement assistance offices
provide.
In 1999, Congress reauthorized the Troops-to-Teachers program and
transferred program oversight from DOD to the Department of Education
(Education), effective in 2000. Through a memorandum of agreement between
DOD and Education, DANTES continues daily program
administration-registering individuals, identifying high-need schools and
districts, and making determinations about who qualifies for bonuses and
stipends-while Education, rather than DOD, has responsibility for program
oversight and management. In that same year, Congress mandated that GAO
conduct an assessment of the program's accomplishments from fiscal years
1994 through 2000. 1 We concluded that the main focus of the program had
shifted from an outplacement resource for separated military personnel to
a recruitment tool to address teacher shortages. The report also concluded
that opportunities existed for Education to integrate the program into its
overall teacher recruitment and retention initiatives, which included
efforts to assist both civilian and military mid-career professionals
become teachers. The 2002 enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA) reauthorized the program and its funding through 2007, increased
the total amount that could be spent on state placement assistance
services, and mandated a second GAO report. To address the NCLBA mandate,
this report answers the following questions:
1. What are the number and characteristics of program participants, and
what factors affect participation?
2. To what extent have participants been recruited and retained to teach
in high-need districts and priority subject areas?
3. What steps has Education taken to facilitate program management?
To conduct our work, we analyzed data that DANTES maintains on all
individuals who have registered for the program, focusing specifically on
those who have received funding between the enactment of NCLBA on January
8, 2002, and June 30, 2005, which marks the end of the 2004-2005 school
year. For this population, we analyzed demographic and financial
assistance data, as well as information on the schools and subject areas
in which the teachers became employed. To assess the reliability of school
GAO, Troops to Teachers: Program Helped Address Teacher Shortages,
GAO-01-567 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001).
Page 2 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
Results in Brief
placement data, we matched the data DANTES provided to data from
Education's National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data,
which includes district and school-level information on free and reduced
price meal eligibility, and the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates program, which includes district-level information on
poverty. In addition, of the 30 funded Troops-to-Teachers placement
assistance offices, we contacted personnel from 7 to obtain the
perspectives of those helping both large and small numbers of troops find
employment through the program. We also interviewed Education officials to
discuss their management of the program and to assess program practices
against GAO standards for internal controls, which establish a framework
for effective agency operations. Further, we interviewed officials at
DANTES and reviewed the results from a recent survey of program
participants conducted by the National Center for Education Information-a
private, non-partisan research organization specializing in survey
research and data analysis. We also spoke with several researchers in the
field of teacher recruitment, preparation, and professional development,
and reviewed related reports on these topics. We assessed the reliability
of all data elements used in the report and determined that the data were
sufficient and reliable for the purposes of our study. We conducted our
work between May 2005 and January 2006 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed discussion of our
scope and methodology appears in appendix I.
The 3,875 teachers documented as having been hired between the enactment
of NCLBA in 2002 and June 30, 2005-the close of the 2004-2005 school
year-contributed to gender and racial diversity in the teaching workforce.
Participation has recently decreased and hiring has been geographically
concentrated. According to our review of administrative records during
this period, over 80 percent of Troops teachers have been male and over 25
percent have been African-American, demographic characteristics that
differ from the new teacher population at large, which is 26 percent male
and 9 percent African-American. The program's fiscal year 2005 annual
report documents a 1-year decline in program registrations and hires, and
personnel from the placement assistance offices we interviewed attributed
this to the military's ongoing demand for active and reserve troops.
According to the program's own data on school-year hiring, which track
teaching placements made between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005, the
majority of teachers hired from the program were geographically
concentrated in seven states- Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Texas, and Virginia. According to interviews with placement
office personnel, the concentration of hires partly can be attributed to
the number and presence of military bases and personnel in these
locations.
Most funded teachers were recruited and retained by schools meeting the
statutory definition of high-need and about one-third reported teaching in
priority subject areas. Most teachers receiving financial assistance
through the program between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005,
found employment in schools meeting program criteria for serving children
who qualify for federal assistance-either through free or reduced-price
meals or special education services. With regard to retention, about 90
percent of the funded participants teaching in high-need districts were
retained for a second year, and over 75 percent taught for a third year.
However, valid comparisons with national retention rates are not possible
because Education calculates teacher retention in high-need schools rather
than high-need districts and also uses a different definition than
Troops-to-Teachers uses when defining what constitutes a high-need school.
Thirtyfive percent of Troops hired taught in at least one of the priority
areas of math, science, special education, or vocational education and 37
percent of all hired teachers reported finding employment in secondary
schools.
Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but has not
explored some opportunities for coordination with related teacher
recruitment activities. In the past several years, Education has
promulgated a final rule to clarify the definition of a high-need school
district, drafted a preliminary work plan to oversee the program, and
signed a memorandum of agreement with DOD. However, the department has not
had procedures in place to validate that DANTES was accurately designating
schools as high-need and has not monitored the spending patterns of the
program's state placement assistance offices to ensure that funding levels
are commensurate with success in facilitating troops' employment.
Additionally, despite operating multiple programs to recruit, retain, and
develop teachers-including the Transition to Teaching program, which also
serves the military population-there was little evidence that Education
coordinated resources among these initiatives. For example, Education has
not known the extent to which these programs worked together to expand the
opportunities for troops to obtain their teaching certifications. Further,
Education disbanded its teacher policy group, which had previously
convened to allow managers a forum to discuss teacher-related programs.
To enhance the department's oversight of this program, we are recommending
that the Secretary of Education take steps to improve program management,
such as better assessing data used to designate
Background
schools as high-need, and enhancing coordination with existing teacher
recruitment and retention initiatives. After reviewing a draft of this
report, officials from DOD indicated that they did not have any comments,
while officials from Education generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations.
According to Education, about 300,000 individuals obtain teaching
certifications each year and the career path generally begins by enrolling
in either a traditional or an alternative certification program, typically
provided by a 4-year institution of higher education. Programs are
considered "traditional" when they combine subject matter instruction,
training on how to manage a classroom, and field experience, or
"alternative" when they enroll individuals who already have the subject
matter knowledge and focus instead on classroom management and exposure to
real-life teaching and learning conditions. Based on Education data, 46
states reported implementing alternative routes to certification, and
about 35,000 individuals each year obtain their teaching credentials
through alternative programs. According to Education, many alternative
certification programs are designed to recruit teachers into shortage
areas such as math, science, and special education or to increase gender
and ethnic diversity in the teaching workforce.
The Troops-to-Teachers program facilitates the entry of former military
personnel into the teaching profession by assessing their academic history
and professional skills and by counseling individuals toward appropriate
programs to obtain certification.
Members and former members of the armed forces are generally eligible to
participate in Troops-to-Teachers if they have a baccalaureate or advanced
degree 2 and meet any of the following four requirements:
o They are retired from active or reserve service.
o They have an approved date of retirement that is within 1 year after
the date on which the member submits an application to participate in
the program.
2
A baccalaureate or advanced degree is not required of those applying for
assistance as a vocational or technical teacher. Instead, these applicants
must have the equivalent of 1 year of college and 6 years or more of
military experience in a related field, or meet the certification
requirements for a vocational education teacher in the state in which the
applicant wishes to work.
Page 5 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
o They have separated from active duty after 6 or more years of
continuous service and enter into a commitment to continue in the
reserves for at least 3 years.
o They are currently serving in the reserves and have at least 10 years
of active or reserve duty and enter into a commitment to continue in
the reserves for at least 3 years.
Eligible members selected to participate in the program must enter into an
agreement to obtain certification or licensing as an elementary,
secondary, or vocational or technical teacher and to become a highly
qualified teacher. 3 In addition, program participants must agree to
accept full-time employment as a teacher for at least 3 years with a
high-need school district or public charter school. NCLBA further requires
that in selecting eligible members of the armed forces to receive
assistance under the program, priority is to be given to members who have
educational or military experience in science, mathematics, special
education, or vocational or technical subjects, and agree to seek
employment as science, mathematics, special education, or vocational
education teachers.
Participants in the program may receive stipends of not more than $5,000
to help defray the cost of enrollment in a teaching certification program
if they agree to teach in high-need school districts, defined as those in
which there are specific numbers or percentages of children from families
with incomes below the poverty line, or public charter schools.
Participants may instead receive bonuses of $10,000 if they agree to teach
in high-need schools-defined as those in which the student population
meets certain low-income eligibility criteria or in which large
percentages of students have disabilities-that are also located in
high-need districts. As further clarified by Education in a recent final
rule, participants initially receiving a stipend who agree to teach for at
least 3 years in a high-need school within a high-need school district or
a public charter school can receive a total payment of $10,000 less their
stipend payments. Reimbursement generally is required of the participant
under certain circumstances, such as failing to obtain certification, to
become a highly qualified teacher, or to obtain employment. Individuals
who do not meet the criteria for stipends
Generally, a highly qualified teacher is defined as a teacher who (1) has
obtained full state certification as a teacher or passed the state teacher
licensing exam and holds a license to teach in the state; (2) holds a
minimum of a bachelor's degree; and (3) has demonstrated subject-matter
competency in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches,
in a manner determined by the state and in compliance with S: 9101(23) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Page 6 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
and bonuses are ineligible for financial assistance, but can still receive
counseling and referral services through the program. Table 1 illustrates
the terms of the financial assistance available.
Table 1: Financial Assistance Provided through the Troops-to-Teachers Program
Type of financial assistance available
Qualifying criteria Stipend Bonus
Conditions required Three years of employment Three years of employment
for receipt of beginning within 1 year of beginning within 1 year of
financial assistance licensure at any school located licensure at a
high-need school
in a high-need district or at a located in a high-need district
public charter school
Amount available Up to $5,000 $10,000
per teacher
Timeline for Two installmentsa Three installmentsb
monetary Up to $3,000 upon $3,333.33 made at the start
disbursement enrollment in a of each teaching year or, for
certification program Up to those who have already
$2,000 after the attainment received stipend payments,
of a teaching license the remaining balance owed
divided in thirds
Source: GAO analysis.
a
If the cost of the certification program does not exceed $3,000, one lump
sum payment equal to the actual certification costs is made upon
enrollment.
b
The total amount of payments received through the program is not to exceed
$10,000. Thus, for those first receiving a stipend and then receiving a
bonus, their total stipend and bonus payments will be no more than
$10,000.
DANTES administers the Troops-to-Teachers program, working with 30 state
placement assistance offices, 6 of which are considered regional offices
because they provide coverage for neighboring states in which there are no
designated Troops-to-Teachers personnel. 4 Each state office is
responsible for recruiting participants through advertisements and
face-to-face encounters, assessing participants' academic transcripts,
guiding them toward the appropriate state certification programs, and
providing placement assistance to direct them to high-need schools or
districts and priority subject areas. According to the program's
authorizing statute, no more than $5 million per year can be used to
establish and maintain these
Two additional offices, New York and West Virginia, have small-scale
operations and, as a result, do not receive any program funding.
Page 7 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
placement assistance offices, and grants to states for these placement
offices are made at the Secretary of Education's discretion.
As figure 1 illustrates, many legislative changes made to the
Troops-to-Teachers program have affected both the program's administration
and the identification of schools and districts in which employment makes
servicemembers eligible to receive financial assistance.
Figure 1: Key Legislative and Regulatory Changes in the Troops-to-Teachers
Program
1992
Troops-to
1999
2002
2005
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Pub. L. No.
102-484,10/23/92)
Created program Authorized $5,000 stipends to participantsAuthorized
grants to school districts that employed participants
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Pub. L. No.
106-65,10/5/99)
Reauthorized the program, entitling it "Troops-to-Teachers" Transferred
responsibility for program oversight and funding from DOD to Education
Eliminated grants to school districts Authorized grants (capped at $4
million) to states or consortia of states for placement offices Defined
high-need schools Authorized $10,000 bonuses to participants who agreed to
teach in high-need schools
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) (Pub. L. No. 107-110, 1/8/02)
Reauthorized the program through FY 2007 Increased cap on grants to states
or consortia of states to $5 million Required participants receiving
stipends to agree to serve in high-need school districtsChanged definition
of high-need schools
Final Regulations (70 Fed. Reg. 38017, 7/1/05)
Prescribed criteria to be used in selecting eligible members of the armed
forces to participate Defined high-need school districts
Source: GAO analysisand Art Explosion.
With regard to eligibility for financial assistance, the type of school in
which a participant is statutorily required to teach has changed
Page 8 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
significantly since the program started. Prior to NCLBA's reauthorization
of the program, participants were required to teach in a district
receiving Title I funds in order to receive a stipend. 5 Under current
requirements, participants can receive a stipend for teaching in a
high-need district or public charter school and can receive a bonus for
teaching in a high-need school. The definition of a high-need school that
was established in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2000 included a school that had a dropout rate exceeding the national
average or that had a large percentage of students speaking English as a
second language; however, this definition has changed. Table 2 illustrates
the current definitions for both a high-need school and a high-need
district. The table also incorporates Education's recent clarification on
the definition of a highneed district, which became effective through a
final rule in September 2005.
Table 2: Definitions of High-Need Schools and High-Need Districts
High-need school High-need district
A "high-need school" is a public elementary, public secondary, or public
charter school in which either (1) 50 percent or more of the enrolled
student population is eligible for free or reduced-price lunchesa or (2) a
large percentage of students qualify for assistance under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
A "high-need district" is one in which (1) 10,000 or more children are
from families with incomes below the poverty line,b or (2) 20 percent or
more of children are from families with incomes below the poverty line, or
(3) between 10 and 20 percent of students have families with incomes below
the poverty line and all teachers funded through the program are employed
in highneed schools.
Source: 20 U.S.C. S: 6674(d)(3) and 34 C.F.R. S: 230.2.
a
The statute states that at least 50 percent of students enrolled in the
school must be from low-income families. DANTES has issued guidance
defining this criterion as meaning students eligible for free and
reduced-price lunches.
b
Poverty line refers to the family income, adjusted for family size, that
the U.S. Census Bureau defines as the threshold below which a family can
be considered living in poverty, for statistical purposes. According to
the Department of Health and Human Services, the 2005 poverty guideline-
used for determining financial eligibility for certain federal
programs-for a family of four living in the contiguous United States was
$19,350.
With regard to program administration, legislative shifts have prompted
changes in oversight. DANTES has maintained daily administration of the
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the largest
source of federal funding to improve the educational achievement of
children at risk. See GAO, Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of
Title I Could Be Improved, GAO-03-377 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2003).
Page 9 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
program since its inception, but when the statute shifted program
oversight to Education, a memorandum of agreement was needed to outline
the relationship between DANTES, DOD, and Education. According to the
current agreement, which was signed in February 2004, DANTES' fiscal and
administrative responsibilities-such as facilitating recruitment
activities, selecting participants, managing program participant files,
and overseeing state placement assistance offices- remained intact, but
DANTES' personnel were also expected to provide Education with an annual
performance report, an itemized financial report, and a program report on
key participant characteristics.
According to the agreement, DOD has the following responsibilities:
o Transfer funds from Education to DANTES for the administration of the
program.
o Assign responsibility for the administration and management of the
program to DANTES.
* Provide information about the program to military personnel as
part of its pre-separation counseling.
* While, among other responsibilities, Education is now expected
to:
o Transfer the congressionally appropriated funds to DOD.
o Oversee DANTES' use of these dollars.
o Monitor on an annual basis the implementation of all activities
carried out by the program through review and approval of annual
budget plans, compliance reviews, audits, and site visits.
o Monitor the expenditure of available funds during any fiscal year and
assure that no more than 10 percent of these funds is used for
administrative infrastructure.
o Provide support and technical assistance.
o Provide legal and policy advice on programmatic issues arising under
the authorizing legislation.
Aside from overseeing Troops-to-Teachers, Education engages in several
additional activities to encourage teacher recruitment in high-need areas.
For example, the department provides funding to forgive the student loans
of highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers serving
in low-income communities. Education also provides states with recruitment
grants to help reduce shortages of qualified teachers in high-need
districts through scholarships and support services. In addition, the
department operates the Transition to Teaching program, which, like
Troops-to-
The 3,875 Troops Documented as Recent Hires Have Contributed to Diversity
in the Teaching Workforce, but Participation Has Recently Decreased and Is
Geographically Concentrated
Teachers, helps adult professionals make a career change into the teaching
profession.
The 3,875 troops who were documented as having been hired through the
program between the enactment of NCLBA in 2002 and June 30, 2005-the close
of the 2004-2005 school year-contributed to gender and racial diversity in
the teaching workforce. 6 However, participation has recently decreased
and hiring has been geographically concentrated. Over 80 percent of Troops
teachers are male and over 25 percent are African-American-characteristics
that differ from the new teacher population at large. Interviews with
personnel from several state placement assistance offices indicated that
recruitment has been negatively affected by recent overseas deployments.
Based on DANTES' own records of school year hiring-July 1, 2001 through
June 30, 2005-the majority of the program's teachers found employment
within seven states, with about 700 hired in Texas alone. According to
state placement personnel in these and other states, the number and
presence of military bases and military personnel in these locations also
affect participation.
The Program Brought Males and Minorities to the Teaching Profession
Since Troops-to-Teachers' inception through June 30, 2005, about 30,720
individuals registered for the program. Beginning with the enactment of
NCLBA through June 30, 2005, more than 3,870 of these registrants
documented that they went on to teach, helping to diversify the teaching
workforce. Over 80 percent of all the teachers hired through the program
during this period were male, a demographic consistent with the military
population but different than that of the new teacher workforce, 7 which
is only 26 percent male. Similarly, African-Americans have represented a
larger percentage of teachers in the program when compared to their
representation in the military and in the new teaching workforce.
Specifically, the proportion of African-Americans teaching through
Troops-to-Teachers is 28 percent, which is higher than the share of
African-Americans in the military population (17 percent), the civilian
6
While 3,875 program participants provided documentation of their teaching
experiences between the enactment of NCLBA and school year 2004-2005,
those not receiving funding were not required to provide such
documentation. Thus, program participants who did not receive funding and
did not voluntarily provide documentation of employment are not included
in this total.
7
Education defines beginning, or new, teachers as those with 3 or fewer
years of experience.
workforce (11 percent), and the new teacher population (9 percent). Table
3 illustrates additional demographic characteristics of Troops-to-Teachers
participants.
Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of Teachers from the Program Hired
between the Enactment of NCLBA and June30, 2005
Troops-to-TeachersParticipant characteristics classroom teachers (percent)
Gender
Male 82
Female 18
Race/ethnicity
White/Non-Hispanic
African-American/Non-Hispanic
Hispanic/Latino
Other/Unknown
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian
Education
Bachelor's degree
Graduate degree
Other degree
Military branch
Army 33
Air Force 26
Navy 15
Reserves 12
National Guard
Marines
Coast Guard
Military pay grade
Enlisted 64
Officer 36
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.
As table 3 documents, Troops-to-Teachers' classroom teachers most
frequently served in the Army (33 percent), Air Force (26 percent), and
Navy (15 percent) before registering with the program.
Page 12 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
Barriers to Participation Include Ongoing Military Deployments
DANTES' latest annual report indicates that registrations have declined
and officials from all of the seven placement offices we interviewed said
that a number of factors affect participation. These officials also noted
that despite the allure of more lucrative professions, registrants have a
keen interest in working with children and want to remain in public
service after leaving the military.
The program's fiscal year 2005 annual report notes that registrations
declined by 9 percent from fiscal year 2004. State placement personnel
said that the high demand for troops to support the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan has resulted in decreased Troops-to-Teachers program
registrations. Further, personnel in some offices noted that DOD's stop
loss policy has reduced the volume of calls and inquiries. 8 These
individuals also speculated that Education's recent rule, which was
implemented in September 2005, and changed the criteria for receipt of
bonuses, would further reduce the number of participants. According to
these officials, the projected decrease in registrations would result
because potential applicants would no longer be able to attain the needed
financial assistance if the schools most appealing to them did not meet
the new criteria specified in the rule. However, others reported that
registrants typically lacked information about school eligibility at the
time of their application. As we will discuss later in the report, due to
several data limitations, the effect of the rule on the number of
qualifying schools and districts cannot be precisely determined.
In addition, some officials noted that barriers to entering the teaching
profession, such as difficulty identifying and enrolling in a flexible and
convenient teacher certification program, could limit participation, but
they expressed the opinion that as these programs became more prevalent,
teacher credentialing could accelerate and more individuals would consider
the profession to be a viable option. According to a 2005 survey of nearly
1,500 Troops-to-Teachers participants, 58 percent of respondents received
their teaching credentials through traditional, campus-based teacher
education programs-either at the undergraduate or graduate level-40
percent of respondents took an alternative
8
DOD's stop loss program enables the military to prevent service members
from leaving active duty after they have completed their obligations.
Page 13 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
certification route to receive the same credential, and the remaining
respondents were unsure how to characterize their programs. 9
At the individual level, motivational factors also were reported as
influencing participation. According to the 2005 survey, nearly 60 percent
of respondents said they would not have become a teacher if the
Troops-to-Teachers program had not been available, and more than 60
percent of respondents said they decided to become teachers because of
their desire to work with young people. The state placement personnel we
interviewed made comments that reflected this, with officials from three
of the seven offices specifically noting troops' interests in working with
young people, and officials from five offices mentioning that troops often
have experience coaching and mentoring younger and newer recruits.
Additionally, personnel from all seven of the placement assistance offices
we interviewed characterized troops entering the classroom as mature,
experienced in working with diverse socio-economic groups, professional,
and adaptable. That said, they acknowledged that professions more
lucrative than teaching, such as those in the consulting or
defense-related industries, could lead many away from the education
profession.
C. Emily Feistritzer, National Center for Education Information, Profile
of Troops to Teachers, August 24, 2005.
Page 14 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
In Recent Years, Seven States Encompassed over Half the Teachers Hired
from the Program, and Costs per Teacher Hired Varied Nationwide
Based on DANTES' data collected from school years 2001-2002 through
2004-2005 (the period between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005), the number
of teachers hired from the program varied widely across the country. For
example, among the seven states with the largest number of Troops hired
over this period-Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Texas,
and Virginia-the number of hires ranged from 169 in California to 697 in
Texas. In contrast, during the same period, there were 34 states in which
fewer than 50 teachers were hired from the program. 10 In particular, 13
of these states had fewer than 10 hires over the same 4 years.
Nevertheless, even among the seven states with the largest numbers of
hires, teachers from the Troops program comprise less than 1 percent of
the K-12 workforce. Figure 2 illustrates the pattern of hiring from the
program across the country during this period.
10
DANTES' data includes hiring in Washington, D.C.; Puerto Rico; and schools
overseas.
Page 15 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
Figure 2: Number of Troops-to-Teachers Participants Hired by State, July 1,
2001, through June 30, 2005
N.H. Mass.
R.I. Conn.
N.J. Del. Md.
D.C.
1-50
51-100
101+
Source: GAO analysis of DANTES hiring data.
Note: Map does not include the nine hires in overseas locations.
The concentration of hires also reflects, to some extent, the
concentration of military personnel in these states. Officials from DANTES
and the placement offices said that troops tend to seek employment close
to a military base because of the services provided there, such as
medical,
Page 16 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
career counseling, and commissary services. States with a larger number of
military bases also had a larger number of Troops participants hired in
their schools.
Figure3: Concentration of Troops Hired through the Program between the
Enactment of NCLBA and June30, 2005, Relative to the Location of Major
Military Installations, by County
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Major military installations include all forts, bases, presidios,
and military reservations- including all facilities with 1,500 or more
military personnel-serving all branches of the military.
The majority of states (34) hired fewer than 50 program teachers between
July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005-accounting for 15 percent of hires during
this period-but placement offices serving these states accounted for a
significant proportion of placement office funds (24 percent or $1.1
million of $4.6 million). Given the hiring variation across the country,
DANTES compiles a report card to assess efficiencies in the 30 funded
placement assistance offices. The report card assigns a letter grade based
on each office's cost (budget) per Troops participant hired. Report card
grades for fiscal year 2004 were nearly evenly distributed "A" through
"C," with about eight states in each category, and another five receiving
a "D," the grade assigned to states with the highest costs per hire. Costs
per hire ranged from $181 in Arkansas to $22,000 in Montana, with the
median state cost per hire approximately $4,000. Five of the seven offices
with the greatest number of hires had cost per hire ratios below the
median-suggesting economies of scale and a strong market for Troops
participants in these states.
Some states with high cost-per-hire ratios noted the frequency with which
they are counseling registrants who ultimately find employment outside
their states. However, our analysis of DANTES' information on teacher
hiring shows that, between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, 5
percent of program registrants found employment in a state administered by
a placement assistance office other than the office with which they
registered.
Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program between
the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, found employment in highneed
districts, and about 90 percent of those first funded continued teaching
in such districts their second year. Over 75 percent of this original
group taught in high-need districts for a third year, but data for
retention beyond 3 years are unavailable. About one-third of the troops
hired during this period reported teaching in the priority areas of math,
science, special education, or vocational education, and based on reported
data, 37 percent of hires reported teaching at the secondary school level.
Most Funded Teachers Have Been Recruited and Retained by Districts
Designated as High-Need, and about One-Third Reported Teaching in Priority
Subject Areas
Most Funded Teachers Worked in Schools Serving Large Percentages of
Children Who Qualify for Federal Assistance
Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program during
this period found employment in schools designated as high-need. Those
individuals receiving bonuses are required to teach in high-need schools,
and DANTES validates their continued eligibility for funding by requiring
annual documentation of their employment. Those receiving stipends are
required to teach in high-need districts or public charter schools and
must also document their employment each year for DANTES' verification,
but these individuals are not required to teach in high-need schools.
DANTES does not track or verify the places of employment for participants
who do not receive funding.
As figure 4 illustrates, between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005,
about 2,690 teachers have received some form of financial assistance to
teach in high-need schools or districts.
Figure 4: Types of Financial Assistance Received by Program Participants
Hired between the Enactment of NCLBA and June30, 2005
430
received only stipend
800
received stipend and bonus
1,460
received only bonus
Source: GAO analysis of DANTES' administrative records.
Note: Counts rounded to nearest 10.
Of this number, about 2,260 individuals received bonuses for teaching in
high-need schools. 11 In this same time period, 254 of the 430 hired
teachers receiving only stipend dollars reported finding teaching
positions in a highneed district. 12 In addition, another roughly 950
participants who received a stipend but not a bonus either have not yet
completed their certification program or have just completed it but have
not yet been hired.
Even though more program registrants are eligible for a stipend than a
bonus, DANTES officials attribute the smaller number of stipend recipients
to (1) the fact that the program cannot guarantee employment after the
acquisition of a teaching certification and (2) participants' own risk
aversion. For example, if participants take the stipend money up front to
pay for their certification and then do not find a teaching position in a
high-need district, they will be required to repay the funds-a risk that
11
This includes those who received both a stipend and a bonus in their
financial assistance package.
12
Of the remaining 176 hired stipend recipients, 36 reported finding
teaching positions in a district that was not designated as high-need, and
140 did not report district information. According to DANTES officials,
they are in contact with individuals from whom repayment is required.
Page 19 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
Over 75 Percent of Funded Teachers Continued Teaching in Districts
Designated as High-Need for at Least 3 Years, but a Valid Comparison with
National Retention Rates Is Impossible
program officials said participants may not be willing to take. On the
contrary, if they decline the stipend money initially and wait instead to
see if they can obtain a teaching position in a high-need school, program
officials stated that these participants will be eligible for a bonus and
may feel more comfortable making the 3-year teaching commitment that
receipt of the bonus requires.
DANTES tracks the 3-year retention rate for each starting teacher because
that is the term of teaching required for an individual to receive
financial assistance. Of teachers funded through either a bonus or a
stipend between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2002, and who
subsequently found employment in high-need districts, 90 percent continued
teaching in a high-need district in their second year, and over 75 percent
of this original group taught in a high-need district for a third year.
Retention rates for more recent starting teachers cannot be calculated
because 3 years have not yet passed since their initial placement. In
comparison, registrants who did not receive funding through the program
have had lower retention rates, with 47 percent teaching in a high-need
district for a second year and 20 percent teaching for a third year.
The 1-year retention rate for Troops-to-Teachers' participants teaching in
high-need districts is not comparable to the national retention rate that
Education calculates because Education analyzes teacher retention in
high-need schools rather than in high-need districts. Further, even if
both calculations systematically assessed retention at the school-house
level, the two measures could still not be compared because Education's
definition of a high-need school differs from the definition used by
Troops-to-Teachers. Specifically, Education considers a school high-need
if 75 percent or more of the student population is eligible for free or
reducedpriced lunches. As we have noted, the Troops program uses a
high-need school definition that is broader, including schools in which 50
percent or more of the student population is eligible to receive free or
reduced-price lunches, as well as schools in which "large percentages" of
students are served under IDEA.
Although the statute requires bonus recipients to teach in high-need
schools for 3 years, recipients who initially found employment in a
highneed school may teach in a school not designated as such the following
year and thus postpone their second and third bonus payments until
employment in an eligible school is found again. If such employment is not
found, recipients are required to reimburse the program for funds
previously received. Similarly, stipend recipients are required to
reimburse the program when employment in a high-need district is not
continued for 3 years. Of the funded participants who initially obtained a
teaching position in a high-need school, but who have not yet completed
their 3-year teaching commitment, DANTES officials stated that the program
has not asked the vast majority for reimbursement because they can still
meet the law's requirements through future employment. However, according
to DANTES' officials, they have requested that 21 percent of stipend
recipients reimburse the program because they did not fulfill their
teaching obligation.
About One-Third of Between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, about
one-third of hired Troops reported teaching in the priority areas of math,
science,
Teachers Hired from the
Program Reported special education, and vocational education, and, based
on reported data,
37 percent reported teaching at the secondary school level. Because
Teaching Math, Science, DANTES has been able to fund all qualified
applicants, it has not had to Special Education, or invoke the statutory
subject area selection priorities. As figure 5 Vocational Education
illustrates, hired teachers were spread across a variety of subject areas.
Figure 5: Percentage of Hired Teachers Reporting Subject Areas Taught
between the Enactment of NCLBA and June30, 2005
3%
teaching multiple priority subjects
5%
teaching vocational education
7%
teaching science
9%
teaching math
11%
teaching special education
28%
not reported
37%
teaching other subject areas
Source: GAO analysis of DANTES'administrative records.
Note: Subject area percentages include all funded and non-funded teachers
who were documented as having been hired through the program. Because only
funded teachers have an obligation to report annual employment
information, this number may not include employment for all non-funded
teachers. Additionally, not all funded participants reported the subject
areas in which they taught.
During this same period, 14 percent of Troops participants were hired into
elementary schools, 19 percent were hired into middle schools, 37 percent
were hired into secondary schools, 3 percent taught courses covering
multiple grade levels, and another 28 percent did not provide information
on the grade level they taught, based on reported data.
Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Program Management but Has Not
Effectively Coordinated Program Administration with Related Initiatives
Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but
coordination with related teacher recruitment activities is lacking. For
example, Education staff have promulgated a final rule to clarify the
definition of a high-need school district and drafted a preliminary work
plan to oversee the program. However, the department does not have
procedures in place to validate DANTES' designations of high-need schools
and does not monitor spending patterns of Troops-to-Teachers placement
offices. Additionally, despite operating multiple programs to recruit,
retain, and develop teachers, Education has done little to facilitate
coordination among the staff who manage these initiatives.
Education Has Better Defined High-Need Districts but Has Not Assessed the
Data It Uses to Make High-Need School Determinations
After allowing time for public comment, Education promulgated a final rule
in July 2005, in part to clarify the definition of a high-need school
district. According to department officials, the rule change, which took
effect in September 2005, was necessary because of discrepancies in the
statute and subsequent confusion over which data sources and indicators of
poverty to use. 13 While 66 percent of districts nationwide met the
criteria for designation as high-need-based on eligibility for free and
reduced-price lunches-before the rule change, the department has not
collected data to determine how the rule change would affect that number.
Since a district's designation as high-need depends, in some cases, on the
designation of schools within that district as high-need, and the number
of schools nationwide designated as high-need is unknown, any discussion
of how the rule change would affect qualifying districts depends on
certain assumptions. 14 If we assume that all districts with a poverty
rate from 10 to 20 percent contain a high-need school to which all funded
teachers have been assigned, then the percentage of districts qualifying
would drop from 66 to 61. However, if none of these districts contains a
high-need school, then the percentage of qualifying districts drops from
66 to 24.
13
Teachers who received funding prior to the implementation of the rule will
not lose their financial assistance, but teachers hired after
implementation-September 15, 2005-will not be eligible for a bonus if the
districts in which they teach do not meet the eligibility criteria.
14
The actual number of qualifying schools nationwide cannot be determined
because percentages of students served under IDEA are tracked at the
district level rather than at the school-house level. As a result, the
characteristics of individual schools cannot be assessed.
Although Education better defined high-need districts, it has not assessed
the data it uses to make high-need school determinations. Based on the
statute, DANTES has defined a high-need school as having either 50 percent
of more of its student population eligible to receive free and
reduced-price lunches or "large percentages of children receiving special
education services under IDEA." However, unlike the criterion related to
lunches, which states a specific qualifying percent that can be assessed
using Education data sources, the statute does not make clear what
constitutes a "large percentage" of students served under IDEA. In
addition, the department does not have a basis for calculating IDEA
information at the school-house level because its own Common Core of Data
has that information only for districts.
According to DANTES' records, in an attempt to operationalize the
definition of a high-need school, the department provided verbal guidance
on or before February 15, 2002, on this issue, specifying that DANTES
should use an eligibility threshold of 11 percent, which it characterized
as the national average. However, no one at the department we spoke with
was familiar with the origins of this guidance, and according to our
review of Education's data, the percentage of students receiving services
under IDEA across the nation was actually 13 percent in 2001 and 14
percent in 2002 and 2003. 15 By our analysis, three-quarters of districts
nationwide have 11 percent or more of their student population receiving
IDEA services-indicating that the threshold the department established to
define a "large percentage" may not result in a very targeted universe of
schools. In commenting on a draft of this report, Education officials
noted that in November 2005, they provided DANTES with the latest national
data on the percentage of students served under IDEA-13.8 percent.
According to Education, DANTES will use this figure when making
determinations for the upcoming school year.
Because Education does not collect IDEA information at the school-house
level, it is not possible to determine the concentration of students
receiving services under IDEA in individual schools, and DANTES must use
alternative data sources to determine if schools meet the IDEA criterion.
Specifically, DANTES currently relies on a database operated by Standard
and Poor's that presents the percentage of students receiving services
under IDEA for some schools in certain states. If information on
National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,
2004. U.S. Department of Education.
Page 24 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
the schools where participants are working or applying is omitted from the
database, DANTES then has to call the schools to make determinations on a
case by case basis. Table 4 illustrates the different sources DANTES must
use to determine if schools and districts meet the criteria necessary for
designation as high-need.
Table 4: Criteria and Data Sources Used to Support the Designation of High-Need
Schools and Districts
Percent of schools or
districts, as
applicable, meeting
criterion
Criteria Data sources DANTES uses nationwide
High-Need schools
At least 50 percent of Education's National Center ion 39.7
the student population for EducatStatistics'
must be eligible for Common Core of Data
free or reduced-price
lunch
Large percentage of Information obtained from a School-level data not
students qualify for database collected at the
assistance under IDEA maintained by Standard and national level-DANTES
Poor's, known as has used 11%
SchoolMatters.com, and from as the operational
contacts with definition for "high
schools omitted from the percentage"
database, in which
participants are applying or
working
High-Need districts
At least 10,000 students have U.S. Census Bureau's Small 0.7a
families with incomes below the Area Income and Poverty
poverty line Estimates program
At least 20 percent of the student U.S. Census Bureau's Small 23.4
population has families with Area Income and Poverty
incomes below the poverty line Estimates program
Between 10% and 20% of students U.S. Census Bureau's Small Up to 37.9b
have families with incomes below Area Income and Poverty
the poverty line and teachers Estimates program
through the program are employed in
high-need schools
Source: Troops-to-Teachers legislation and regulations, DANTES, and data
from the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau for
2003-2004.
a
The vast majority of districts with 10,000 or more students from families
with incomes below the poverty line also have at least 10 percent of the
student population in poverty.
b
In the absence of national information on IDEA participation at the
school-house level, it is unknown how many schools meet the high-need
criteria. As a result, it is impossible to determine how many districts
across the nation contain a high-need school. However, if all of the 37.9
percent of districts containing between 10 and 20 percent of students in
poverty have at least one school that meets the high-need criteria and all
funded teachers have been assigned to this school, then they can be
designated as high-need districts.
Education officials noted the difficulty of amassing the various data
needed for DANTES to adhere to the definition of high-need schools, and
cited this as a reason for not developing a centralized database of
information. However, according to Education officials, the department had
not assessed the reliability of the steps DANTES currently uses to
Education Lacks Controls to Ensure Effective Allocation of Program Funds
and Timely Execution of Its Management Responsibilities
make high-need school determinations. Without a thorough review of the
validity of available data, the department is unable to determine (1) if
DANTES is applying the existing eligibility criteria appropriately, and
(2) if the eligibility thresholds, particularly with regard to IDEA,
reflect current conditions.
Education has not effectively implemented some of the controls necessary
to ensure that the program is efficiently achieving its objectives. GAO's
standards for agencies' internal control activities note the importance of
qualified and continuous supervision, overall workforce continuity
planning, and regular review of performance reports, budgets, and trends
to ensure effective agency operations. 16 Since 2001, Education has had
four different individuals responsible for the Troops-to-Teachers program.
Further, while one former manager had drafted a preliminary work plan,
which included developing an evaluation plan and working with DANTES to
develop performance measures, officials acknowledged that they had not
focused on implementing the steps, and said that the current work plan
needed improvement. When we established that no timeline was in place to
implement the existing plan, officials responded that they would finalize
a revised plan and implement it by February 2006. Officials added that
while Troops-to-Teachers is included in Education's annual performance
report, they are also working on alternative outcome measures that better
assess the quality of teachers recruited through the program.
In addition, Education lacks the necessary controls to ensure that the
program is spending its funding not only within the parameters established
by the statute and the memorandum of agreement, but also in an efficient
and productive way. The statute caps annual grants that can be made to
states for Troops-to-Teachers' placement office operations at $5 million
and the memorandum caps expenses associated with administrative
infrastructure, such as DANTES' spending on database management or
personnel, at 10 percent of the total available funds. While Education
officials check to ensure that the program does not exceed its caps, they
neither review how DANTES spends its budget nor do they monitor the
spending patterns of placement assistance offices. As noted earlier, 13 of
the 30 funded placement offices received low scores of either "C" or "D"
16
GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
Page 26 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
Education Has Not Made Efforts to Coordinate Program Administration with
Other Federal Teacher Development Activities
but department officials told us they have not determined if the cost per
hire ratios, which drive the grades DANTES assigns, are appropriate
measures of state offices' performance. As a result, the department is not
positioned to comment on the dispersion of these grades or to take action
to address poor performing offices. Specifically, without assessing these
measures or alternative performance data, Education cannot determine
whether state offices should be closed or consolidated to improve program
efficiency. Additionally, our analysis of the program's overall
expenditures for fiscal year 2002 showed that about 60 percent was
allotted to financial assistance and 40 percent of funds supported
operational or administrative expenses in the central office and placement
offices. 17 For fiscal year 2004, to date, the amount expended on
financial assistance has been just over 50 percent of the program's total
expenditures. Without a thorough review of these spending patterns, the
department's ability to take action when spending approaches the caps may
be limited.
Education operates another teacher recruitment and retention program- the
Transition to Teaching program-that overlaps somewhat with the mission of
Troops-to-Teachers. Both programs recruit mid-career professionals to
teach in high-need schools and in subjects such as math and science, for
which qualified teachers are in short supply. Both programs target career
changers and Transition to Teaching funds are also used to recruit from
the military population. However, as illustrated in table 5, Transition to
Teaching is distinct from Troops-to-Teachers in that it provides grants
directly to organizations, such as universities or county offices of
education, that operate teacher certification programs.
17
According to program officials, obligations for financial assistance each
year are generally expended over a 3-year period because individuals
receive their bonus payments in installments.
Page 27 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers
Table 5: Selected Department of Education Activities to Facilitate Entrance into
the Teaching Profession
FY 2005
Program Mission Funding Numbers funding
recipients served
Transition to To support (1) the State and 164 grantees $44,900,000
Teaching Troops- development of new local have $14,800,000
or enhanced educational received
alternative routes agencies, funding to
to certification and for-profit operate
(2) the organizations, their
participation of non-profit programs
mid-career organizations, since the
professionals in or federal
these programs and institutions program
their ultimate of higher began in
recruitment by and education calendar
retention in collaborating year 2001.
highneed schools and with state or About 8,000
districts. Grant local individuals
recipients operate educational
programs that serve agencies are
mid-career eligible for
professionals from 5-year grants
all industries and to operate
trades-participation their programs
is neither limited Individuals
to nor focused participating
exclusively on the in the
military. To
recruit, prepare,
and support former
members of the armed program are eligible have
to forces as teachers in for received
financial
Teachers high-need schools and stipends and bonuses assistance
districts. to since the
facilitate entry program
into the teaching began in
fiscal
profession year 1994.
Source: GAO analysis.
We found that 12 of the 123 grants (approximately 10 percent) made through
the Transition to Teaching program from the 2002 and 2004 award years
funded programs that specifically targeted military personnel. 18 For
example, several universities receiving Transition to Teaching grants
recruit from the retired military population and operate programs that
provide mentoring services to assist with their retention and development.
The remaining Transition to Teaching grantees generally focus their
recruitment on career changers from a wide variety of professions,
although they too may provide mentoring and ongoing support for new
teacher candidates.
Despite the similarities in the mission of Transition to Teaching and
Troops-to-Teachers, and the fact that they are administered by the same
office within Education, we found minimal coordination between the
programs. Although Education officials said that department personnel from
both programs attend the same conferences and share ideas, there was
little evidence of resource coordination beyond discussions of how the
programs related. Additionally, officials noted that a teacher policy
group had previously existed within the department so that managers could
meet regularly to discuss the teacher-related programs they
18
The Transition to Teaching Program did not hold a competition for award
year 2003.
Conclusions
oversaw. Though department officials told us that the group had disbanded,
they noted it would be a useful tool to facilitate ongoing collaboration.
Differences in data collection and monitoring strategies exist that may
further limit the coordination of these programs. For example, DANTES
collects participation data on the Troops-to-Teachers program. For the
Transition to Teaching program, however, Education merely lists grant
recipients and summarizes their programs. Additionally, Education collects
very little data to assess grant recipients' program outcomes. According
to Education's performance report on Transition to Teaching, grantees use
different methods for reporting data to the department. Further, the
department does not have any summary information on the program's outcomes
over time, but agency officials told us they have contracted with an
independent research group to evaluate performance for a sample of 2002
grant recipients. Because Education does not know the demographic
characteristics of the individuals who benefit from the Transition to
Teaching program, the department cannot determine the extent to which the
two programs complement and coordinate with one another to move former
military personnel into teaching positions.
Education officials told us that they believe statutory barriers would
prevent the consolidation of Troops-to-Teachers with the other programs
like Transition to Teaching. Nevertheless, the officials acknowledged
similarities between the programs and supported the idea of further
coordination.
Between the enactment of NCLBA on January 8, 2002, and June 30, 2005, the
Troops-to-Teachers program helped at least 3,875 former members of the
military enter the teaching profession, contributing to the
diversification of the teaching workforce. However, without thoroughly
reviewing the data sources that DANTES uses to designate schools as
high-need, Education cannot ensure that DANTES is (1) making accurate
decisions about which schools meet the criteria and (2) placing new
teachers in these high-need schools. Further, without providing updated
guidance on eligibility thresholds for students served under IDEA,
Education cannot ensure that the criteria currently used reflect schools'
changing conditions.
Education, which has overseen the program since 2000, has taken some steps
to manage the program, but it only recently established a timeline to
finalize and implement a draft work plan. As of December 2005, however, it
remained unclear whether or not this plan would include a formal
mechanism, such as a joint work group, to coordinate with a similar
program also administered by the department-the Transition to Teaching
program. Without more detailed coordination strategies, Education may be
missing an important opportunity to leverage its resources and develop an
effective campaign to recruit and retain mid-career professionals in
high-need schools.
Finally, although the program's operating budget is relatively small,
without stronger controls in place to determine if program spending levels
are appropriate, the department cannot ensure that placement offices are
efficiently serving both eligible participants and the children in the
neediest schools and districts. Thus, while the program is spending within
its caps, because the department does not review how placement offices
manage their funds, it is unable to identify those offices that are
working well, determine ways in which consolidation may be wise, and
justify the continued investment of federal dollars. In addition, without
leveraging the efficiencies of placement offices that operate with low
costs per hire, and considering the closure or consolidation of less
efficient offices, the department may be unable to reduce the program's
operating costs and free additional funds for financial assistance, should
the number of program registrants rise.
We are making three recommendations to further improve Education's
Recommendations for
oversight of the Troops-to-Teachers program.
Executive Action
o To assist with the identification of eligible high-need schools and to
help direct participants to them, the Secretary of Education should
assess the reliability of the data DANTES uses to determine a "large
percentage" of students served under IDEA and periodically review
existing guidance to ensure that the eligibility threshold related to
the IDEA criterion reflects the changing conditions in schools.
o To better link programs that serve the military population and that
relate to teacher recruitment and retention overall, the Secretary of
Education should consider reconvening teacher policy groups or
otherwise developing a plan to coordinate the use of existing
departmental resources and staff assigned to monitor similar programs.
o To better exercise its discretion for grant-making to state placement
offices and to ensure that budgets are created to reflect success in
facilitating teacher placement, the Secretary of Education should
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
consider data that DANTES collects on placement offices' cost per hire
ratios, or develop other measures of efficiency, and take action when
offices are deemed ineffective at helping participants find employment.
We provided a draft of this report to Education and DOD for their review
and comment. DOD did not provide any comments, and Education's comments
are reproduced in appendix II.
Education generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. With
regard to our first recommendation-that Education assess the reliability
of the data DANTES uses to determine a "large percentage" of students
served under IDEA and also review existing guidance it provides on making
the determination-Education said that in November 2005, it provided DANTES
with an updated figure on the percentage of students served nationally
under IDEA. While our report reflects the information that DANTES had
available for the current school year, the data that Education recently
provided will be used for making determinations for the upcoming school
year. We believe that it is important for the department to periodically
update the IDEA data and to regularly monitor the reliability of the
information that DANTES collects from schools to address this criterion.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education and
Defense, relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be made available at no charge on our Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff has any questions
about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
Other contacts and major contributors are listed in appendix III.
Marnie S. Shaul, Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of
methodological approaches. To provide information on the number and
characteristics of program participants and the factors affecting
participation-our first reporting objective-we analyzed data that DANTES
maintains on registered program participants, focusing on those
participants who received funding through the program between the
enactment of NCLBA on January 8, 2002, and June 30, 2005, which marks the
end of the 2004-2005 school year. These data include demographic
information, such as age and race, as well as information on the schools,
subject areas, and grade levels taught for the participants' first 3 years
of employment, which also helped us respond to our second reporting
objective-the extent to which participants have been hired by and retained
in high-need districts and priority subject areas. 1 To assess placement
into high-need districts, we matched employment information to Education's
Common Core of Data school survey, which includes school and
district-level counts of free and reduced-price lunch eligibility. To
provide information on the impact of the final rule on the number of
school districts eligible to be classified as high-need, we analyzed data
from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
program, which includes enrollment and poverty counts by school district.
To provide information on factors affecting participation, we reviewed the
methodology and findings from a recently issued survey of current Troops
participants, which measures their satisfaction with the program,
motivations to teach, views on professional development, and future career
or retirement plans. In addition, we contacted personnel in several
placement assistance offices to learn their perspectives. Although we were
unable to quantify the order and magnitude of the factors they noted,
these interviews contributed significantly to our findings in this regard.
To report on our final objective-the steps that Education has taken to
implement internal controls to facilitate program management-we
interviewed Education and DOD officials responsible for the oversight and
administration of the program to learn more about the select internal
controls that they implement to evaluate program achievements and the
cost-effectiveness of the program. These controls include annual
performance reports that states provide to DANTES and that DANTES in
1
The DANTES dataset includes information on teaching experiences for up to
12 years from the first placement year. However, this information is not
actively collected and is not reliable for measuring retention rates
beyond 3 years.
Page 32 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
turn presents to Education and DOD. In addition, we assessed DANTES'
calculation of each state office's average cost per placement. We also
obtained and reviewed relevant program guidance and materials from
Education and DOD as appropriate to document these practices, including
information on the new rule Education finalized in July 2005 to clarify
program eligibility and its potential impact on the recruitment and
retention of program participants. In addition, to provide general
background information, we interviewed several education policy
researchers, some of whom were teaching or researching in the field of
teacher preparation, induction, and professional development, and reviewed
related reports on these topics.
We assessed the reliability of DANTES' administrative data by tracing the
dataset contents to the source registration and program materials for all
variables used in our analysis. In addition, we assessed the reliability
of Education's Common Core of Data and the Census Bureau's Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates program data by reviewing existing
information about the data and the system that produced them, and where
applicable, performing electronic testing of required data elements. We
further assessed the reliability of the Census data by reviewing published
assessments by Census Bureau statisticians of both the model itself and
how the results of that model compare to other national sources of income
and poverty information. We determined that the data were sufficient and
reliable for the purposes of our report. The work was done in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Marnie S. Shaul (202) 512-7215, [email protected]
GAO Contact
Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant Director), Joy Gambino (Analyst-in-
Charge), and Jeffrey W. Weinstein (Economist) managed all aspects of the
assignment. In addition, Avrum Ashery, Richard Burkard, Wilfred Holloway,
Mitch Karpman, Lynn Milan, John Mingus, Luann Moy, Mimi Nguyen, Karen
O'Conor, Jim Rebbe, and Tovah Rom made significant contributions.
Related GAO Products
No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education's
Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification
Requirements. GAO-06-25. Washington, D.C: November 21, 2005.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO/AIMD-00-21.
3.1. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1999.
Troops to Teachers: Program Helped Address Teacher Shortages.
GAO-01-567. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001.
(130471)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov) . Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
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. Government Accountability 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
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***