Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of	 
Key Federal Efforts (17-MAY-07, GAO-07-861T).			 
                                                                 
Teachers are the single largest resource in our nation's	 
elementary and secondary education system. However, according to 
recent research, many teachers lack competency in the subjects	 
they teach. In addition, research shows that most teacher	 
training programs leave new teachers feeling unprepared for the  
classroom. While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily
the responsibility of state and local governments and		 
institutions of higher education, the federal investment in	 
enhancing teacher quality is substantial and growing. In 1998,	 
the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to enhance	 
the quality of teaching in the classroom and in 2001 the Congress
passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), which established	 
federal requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects 
be highly qualified. This testimony focuses on (1) approaches	 
used in teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA, (2) the	 
allowable activities under these acts and how recipients are	 
using the funds, and (3) how Education supports and evaluates	 
these activities. This testimony is based on prior GAO reports.  
We updated information where appropriate.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-861T					        
    ACCNO:   A69735						        
  TITLE:     Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and	      
Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts				 
     DATE:   05/17/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Education						 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational grants 				 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Elementary education				 
	     Employee training					 
	     Grant monitoring					 
	     Higher education					 
	     Hiring policies					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Quality improvement				 
	     Secondary education				 
	     Teacher education					 
	     Teachers						 
	     Program goals or objectives			 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-861T

   

     * [1]Teacher Quality Provisions under HEA and NCLBA Have Somewhat
     * [2]Some HEA and NCLBA Funds Were Used for Similar Activities As
     * [3]Education Is Working to Provide Better Assistance and Improv
     * [4]Concluding Observations
     * [5]GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
     * [6]GAO's Mission
     * [7]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [8]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [9]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [10]Congressional Relations
     * [11]Public Affairs

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Thursday, May 17, 2007

TEACHER QUALITY

Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts

Statement of George A. Scott, Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

GAO-07-861T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the federal government's
efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers are the single largest
resource in our nation's elementary and secondary education system.
Approximately 3 million teachers are responsible for educating over 48
million students and they account for over one half of public school
expenditures ($215 billion) each year. Research has shown that teachers
play a significant role in improving student performance. However,
research has also shown that many teachers--especially those in
high-poverty districts--lack competency in the subjects they teach and
that most teacher training programs leave new teachers feeling unprepared
for the classroom.

While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the responsibility
of state and local governments and institutions of higher education, the
federal investment in enhancing teacher quality is substantial and
growing. In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to
enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom by improving training
programs for prospective teachers and the qualifications of current
teachers. In 2001, the Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA)--the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act--which established federal requirements that all teachers of
core academic subjects be highly qualified. In 2006, about $3 billion of
federal funds were appropriated for NCLBA Title II and HEA Title II to
address teacher quality. Given that NCLBA and HEA are both slated for
reauthorization in 2007, this hearing presents a timely opportunity to
explore teacher quality provisions covered under those laws.

This statement focuses on the approaches, implementation, and evaluation
of teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA. I will first provide
information on the goals, approaches, and funding of these programs. Then
I will discuss the allowable activities and how recipients are using the
funds. Finally, I will summarize our findings related to Education's
support and evaluation of these activities.

My remarks today are drawn from previous GAO reports covering HEA teacher
quality programs and Title II under NCLBA,^1 supplemented with updated
information. We updated information by interviewing state officials,
officials from institutions of higher education, and Education officials.
We also reviewed recent studies and Education documents. We conducted our
work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

In summary:

           o While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA is to
           improve teacher quality, some of the specific approaches differ.
           For example, HEA focuses more on training prospective teachers
           than NCLBA. In addition, HEA and NCLBA are funded differently,
           with HEA funds distributed through competitive grants, while Title
           II under NCLBA provides funds annually to all states through a
           formula.
           o Both acts provide states, districts, and grantees with the
           flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to
           improve teacher quality, including many activities that are
           similar, such as professional development and recruitment. A
           difference is that NCLBA's Title II specifies that teachers can be
           hired to reduce class size, while HEA does not specifically
           mention class-size reduction. With the broad range of activities
           allowed, we found both similarities and differences in the
           activities undertaken.
           o Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and
           guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for
           holding recipients accountable for the quality of their
           activities. Our previous work identified areas in which Education
           could improve its assistance to states on their teacher quality
           efforts and more effectively measure the results of these
           activities. Education has made progress in addressing our concerns
           by disseminating more information to recipients particularly on
           teacher quality requirements and activities and improving how the
           department measures the results of teacher quality activities by,
           for example, establishing performance targets.

^1 GAO, Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training
but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced, [12]GAO-03-6
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2002) and GAO, No Child Left Behind Act:
Improved Accessibility to Education's Information Could Help States
Further Implement Teacher Qualification Requirements, [13]GAO-06-25
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2005).

Teacher Quality Provisions under HEA and NCLBA Have Somewhat Different
Approaches and Are Funded Differently

While the overall goal of Title II under both HEA and NCLBA is to improve
student achievement by improving the teacher workforce, some of the
specific approaches differ. For example, a major focus of HEA provisions
is on the training of prospective teachers (preservice training) while
NCLBA provisions focus more on improving teacher quality in the classroom
(in service training) and hiring highly qualified teachers. Also, both
laws use reporting mechanisms to increase accountability. However, HEA
focuses more on institutions of higher education while NCLBA focuses on
schools and school districts. Additionally, HEA focuses on expanding the
teacher workforce by supporting recruitment from other professions.

In addition, HEA and NCLBA Title II funds are distributed differently. HEA
teacher quality funds are disbursed through three distinct types of
grants: state, partnership, and recruitment grants. State grants are
available for states to implement activities to improve teacher quality in
their states by enhancing teacher training efforts, while partnership
grants support the collaborative efforts of teacher training programs and
other eligible partners.^2 Recruitment grants are available to states or
partnerships for teacher recruitment activities.

All three types of grants require a match from non-federal sources. For
example, states receiving state grants must provide a matching amount in
cash or in-kind support from non-federal sources equal to 50 percent of
the amount of the federal grant.^3 All three grants are one-time
competitive grants; however, state and recruitment grants are for 3 years
while partnership grants are for 5 years.^4 HEA amendments in 1998
required that 45 percent of funds be distributed to state grants, 45
percent to partnership grants, and 10 percent to recruitment grants. As of
April 2007, 52 of the 59 eligible entities (states, the District of
Columbia, and 8 territories) had received state grants.^5 Because the
authorizing legislation specifically required that entities could only
receive a state grant once, only seven would be eligible to receive future
state grants. In our 2002 report, we suggested that if Congress decides to
continue funding teacher quality grants in the upcoming reauthorization of
HEA, it might want to clarify whether all 59 entities would be eligible
for state grant funding under the reauthorization, or whether eligibility
would be limited to only those states that have not previously received a
state grant. We also suggested that if Congress decides to limit
eligibility to entities that have not previously received a state grant,
it may want to consider changing the 45 percent funding allocation for
state grants. In a 2005 appropriation act, Congress waived the allocation
requirement. In 2006, about 9 percent of funds were awarded for state
grants, 59 percent for partnership grants, and 33 percent for recruitment.
When Congress reauthorizes HEA, it may want to further clarify eligibility
and allocation requirements for this program.

^2 Eligible partnerships must include at least three partners, consisting
of teacher training programs, colleges of Arts and Sciences, and eligible
local school districts. Partnerships may include other groups such as
state educational agencies, businesses, and nonprofit educational
organizations.

^3 Partnerships must match from non-federal sources 25 percent of the
partnership grant in the first year, 35 percent in the second, and 50
percent in each succeeding year. States and partnerships that receive
recruitment grants have the same matching requirements for these grants as
they have under their separate grant programs.

^4 According to Education, an institution of higher education can have
more than one grant (simultaneously or sequentially) as long as the
members of the partnership are not identical (i.e. a new partnership is
formed).

NCLBA, funded at a much higher level than HEA, provides funds to states
through annual formula grants. In 2006, Congress appropriated $2.89
billion through NCLBA and $59.9 million for HEA for teacher quality
efforts.^6 While federal funding for teacher initiatives was provided
through two other programs prior to NCLBA, the act increased the level of
funding to help states and districts implement the teacher qualification
requirements. States and districts generally receive NCLBA Title II funds
based on the amount they received in 2001, the percentage of children
residing in the state or district, and the number of those children in
low-income families. After reserving up to 1 percent of the funds for
administrative purposes, states pass 95 percent of the remaining funds to
the districts and retain the rest to support state-level teacher
initiatives and to support NCLBA partnerships between higher education
institutions and high-need districts that work to provide professional
development to teachers.

While there is no formula in NCLBA for how districts are to allocate funds
to specific schools, the act requires states to ensure that districts
target funds to those schools with the highest number of teachers who are
not highly qualified, schools with the largest class sizes, or schools
that have not met academic performance requirements for 2 or more
consecutive years. In addition, districts applying for Title II funds from
their states are required to conduct a districtwide needs assessment to
identify their teacher quality needs. NCLBA also allows districts to
transfer these funds to most other major NCLBA programs, such as those
under Title I, to meet their educational priorities. ^7

^5 Since 1999, 63 partnership grants have been made to various entities,
and 68 recruitment grants were made.

^6 The funding authorizations for Title II, along with the rest of HEA,
were extended through June 30, 2007, under the Third Higher Education
Extension Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109-292).

Some HEA and NCLBA Funds Were Used for Similar Activities As Allowed under Both
Acts

HEA provides grantees and NCLBA provides states and districts with the
flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve
teacher quality, including many activities that are similar under both
acts. HEA funds can be used, among other activities, to reform teacher
certification requirements, professional development activities, and
recruitment efforts. In addition, HEA partnership grantees must use their
funds to implement reforms to hold teacher preparation programs
accountable for the quality of teachers leaving the program. Similarly,
acceptable uses of NCLBA funds include teacher certification activities,
professional development in a variety of core academic subjects,
recruitment, and retention initiatives. In addition, activities carried
out under NCLBA partnership grants are required to coordinate with any
activities funded by HEA. Table 1 compares activities under HEA and NCLBA.

^7 Specifically, districts are allowed to transfer up to 50 percent of the
funds allocated to them under most major NCLBA programs, including Title
II, into other programs under NCLBA. For example, districts may transfer a
portion of their Title II funds into Title I for initiatives designed to
improve student achievement.

Table 1: Examples of Activities under HEA Title II and NCLBA Title II

HEA                              NCLBA                                     
Reforming teacher certification  Reforming teacher and principal           
or licensure requirements        certification or licensing requirements   
Recruitment and retention        Recruitment and retention                 
Professional development         Professional development                  
Implement reforms within teacher Reforming tenure systems, implementing    
preparation programs to hold the teacher testing for subject matter        
programs accountable for         knowledge, and implementing teacher       
preparing highly competent       testing for State certification or        
teachers                         licensing, consistent with Title II of    
                                    HEA                                       
Providing preservice clinical    Hiring teachers to reduce class size      
experience and mentoring                                                   
Disseminating information on     Developing systems to measure the         
effective practices              effectiveness of specific professional    
                                    development programs                      
Teacher education scholarships   Funding projects to promote reciprocity   
                                    of teacher and principal certification or 
                                    licensing between or among States         
Follow-up services for new       Support to teachers or principals         
teachers                                                                   

Source: GAO summary of HEA Title II and NCLBA Title II.

With the broad range of activities allowed under HEA and NCLBA, we found
both similarities and differences in the activities undertaken. For
example, districts chose to spend about one-half of their NCLBA Title II
funds ($1.2 billion) in 2004-2005 on class-size reduction efforts, which
is not an activity specified by HEA.^8 We found that some districts
focused their class-size reduction efforts on specific grades, depending
on their needs. One district we visited focused its NCLBA-funded
class-size reduction efforts on the eighth grade because the state already
provided funding for reducing class size in other grades. However, while
class-size reduction may contribute to teacher retention, it also
increases the number of classrooms that need to be staffed and we found
that some districts had shifted funds away from class-size reduction to
initiatives to improve teachers' subject matter knowledge and
instructional skills. Similarly, Education's data showed that the percent
of NCLBA district funds spent on class-size reduction had decreased since
2002-2003, when 57 percent of funds were used for this purpose.

^8 Education surveyed approximately 800 districts and found that they
spent $1.2 billion, about half of their NCLBA Title II funds in 2004-2005,
to hire more teachers in order to reduce class size. According to an
Education official, no comparable HEA expenditure data is available.

HEA and NCLBA both funded professional development and recruitment
efforts, although the specific activities varied somewhat. For example,
mentoring was the most common professional development activity among the
HEA grantees we visited. Of the 33 HEA grant sites we visited, 23 were
providing mentoring activities for teachers. In addition, some grantees
used their funds to establish a mentor training program to ensure that
mentors had consistent guidance. One state used the grant to develop
mentoring standards and to build the capacity of trainers to train teacher
mentors within each district. Some districts used NCLBA Title II funds for
mentoring activities as well. We also found that states and districts used
NCLBA Title II funds to support other types of professional development
activities. For example, two districts we visited spent their funds on
math coaches who perform tasks such as working with teachers to develop
lessons that reflected state academic standards and assisting them in
using students' test data to identify and address students' academic
needs. Additionally, states used a portion of NCLBA Title II funds they
retained to support professional development for teachers in core academic
subjects. In two states that we visited, officials reported that state
initiatives specifically targeted teachers who had not met the subject
matter competency requirements of NCLBA. These initiatives either offered
teachers professional development in core academic subjects or reimbursed
them for taking college courses in the subjects taught.

Both HEA and NCLBA funds supported efforts to recruit teachers. Many HEA
grantees we interviewed used their funds to fill teacher shortages in
urban schools or to recruit new teachers from nontraditional
sources--mid-career professionals, community college students, and middle-
and high-school students. For example, one university recruited teacher
candidates with undergraduate degrees to teach in a local school district
with a critical need for teachers while they earn their masters in
education. The program offered tuition assistance, and in some cases, the
district paid a full teacher salary, with the stipulation that teachers
continue teaching in the local school district for 3 years after
completing the program. HEA initiatives also included efforts to recruit
mid-career professionals by offering an accelerated teacher training
program for prospective teachers already in the workforce. Some grantees
also used their funds to recruit teacher candidates at community colleges.
For example, one of the largest teacher training institutions in one state
has partnered with six community colleges around the state to offer
training that was not previously available. Finally, other grantees
targeted middle and high school students. For example, one district used
its grant to recruit interns from 14 high-school career academies that
focused on training their students for careers as teachers. Districts we
visited used NCLBA Title II funds to provide bonuses to attract successful
administrators, advertise open teaching positions, and attend recruitment
events to identify qualified candidates. In addition, one district also
used funds to expand alternative certification programs, which allowed
qualified candidates to teach while they worked to meet requirements for
certification.

Finally, some states used HEA funds to reform certification requirements
for teachers. Reforming certification or licensing requirements was
included as an allowable activity under both HEA and NCLBA to ensure that
teachers have the necessary teaching skills and academic content knowledge
in the subject areas. HEA grantees also reported using their funds to
allow teacher training programs and colleges to collaborate with local
school districts to reform the requirements for teacher candidates. For
example, one grantee partnered with institutions of higher education and a
partner school district to expose teacher candidates to urban schools by
providing teacher preparation courses in public schools.

Education Is Working to Provide Better Assistance and Improve Its Evaluation and
Oversight Efforts

Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and guidance
to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding recipients
accountable for the quality of their activities. In 1998, Education
created a new office to administer HEA grants and provide assistance to
grantees. While grantees told us that the technical assistance the office
provided on application procedures was helpful, our previous work noted
several areas in which Education could improve its assistance to HEA
grantees, in part through better guidance. For example, we recommended
that in order to effectively manage the grant program, Education further
develop and maintain its system for regularly communicating program
information, such as information on successful and unsuccessful practices.
We noted that without knowledge of successful ways of enhancing the
quality of teaching in the classroom, grantees might be wasting valuable
resources by duplicating unsuccessful efforts. Since 2002, Education has
made changes to improve communication with grantees and potential
applicants. For example, the department presented workshops to potential
applicants and updated and expanded its program Web site with information
about program activities, grant abstracts, and other teacher quality
resources. In addition, Education provided examples of projects undertaken
to improve teacher quality and how some of these efforts indicate improved
teacher quality in its 2005 annual report on teacher quality.^9

Education also has provided assistance to states, districts and schools
using NCLBA Title II funds. The department offers professional development
workshops and related materials that teachers can access online through
Education's website. In addition, Education assisted states and districts
by providing updated guidance. In our 2005 report, officials from most
states and districts we visited who use Education's Web site to access
information on teacher programs or requirements told us that they were
unaware of some of Education's teacher resources or had difficulty
accessing those resources. We recommended that Education explore ways to
make the Web-based information on teacher qualification requirements more
accessible to users of its Web site. Education immediately took steps in
response to the recommendation and reorganized information on its website
related to the teacher qualification requirements.

In addition to providing assistance and guidance, Education is responsible
for evaluating the efforts of HEA and NCLBA recipients and for overseeing
program implementation. Under HEA, Education is required to annually
report on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications
of current teachers. In 2002, we found that the information collected for
this requirement did not allow Education to accurately report on the
quality of HEA's teacher training programs and the qualifications of
current teachers in each state. In order to improve the data that states
are collecting from institutions that receive HEA teacher quality grants,
and all those that enroll students who receive federal student financial
assistance and train teachers, we recommended that Education should more
clearly define key data terms so that states provide uniform information.
Further, in 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed a
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment^10 of this program and
gave it a rating of "results not demonstrated," due to a lack of
performance information and program management deficiencies. Education
officials told us that they had aligned HEA's data collection system with
NCLBA definitions of terms such as "highly qualified teacher." However,
based on the PART assessment, the Administration proposed eliminating
funding for HEA teacher quality grants in its proposed budgets for fiscal
years 2006-2008, and redirecting the funds to other programs. Congress has
continued to fund this program in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

^9 The Secretary's Fourth Annual Report on Teacher Quality, U.S.
Department of Education (Washington, D.C.) August 2005.

^10OMB uses the PART as a diagnostic tool meant to provide a consistent
approach to evaluating federal programs as part of the executive budget
formulation process and as a central component of its overall
governmentwide management efforts.

Education has responded to our recommendations and issues raised in the
PART assessment related to evaluating grantee activities and providing
more guidance to grantees on the types of information needed to determine
effectiveness.  When the Congress amended HEA in 1998 to provide grants to
states and partnerships, it required that Education evaluate the
activities funded by the grants. In 2005, Education established
performance measures for two of the teacher quality enhancement
programs--state grants and partnership grants--and required grantees to
provide these data in their annual performance plans submitted to
Education. ^11 The performance measure for state grants is the percentage
of prospective teachers who pass subject matter tests, while the measure
for partnership grants is the percentage of participants who complete the
program and meet the definition of being "highly qualified." In addition,
in 2006, Education included information in letters to grantees on the
types of information that it requires to assess the effectiveness of its
teacher quality programs. For example, in its letters to state grantees,
Education noted that when reporting on quantitative performance measures,
grantees must show how their actual performance compared to the targets
(e.g., benchmarks or goals) that were established in the approved grant
application for each budget period.

In addition, in May 2006, Education issued its final report on HEA's
partnership grants, focusing on the 25 grantees of the 1999 cohort.^12 The
goal of the study was to learn about the collaborative activities taking
place in partnerships. It was designed to examine approaches for preparing
new and veteran teachers and to assess the sustainability of project
activities after the grant ends. Among its findings, Education reported
that partnerships encouraged and supported collaboration between
institutions of higher education and schools to address teacher
preparation needs.

^11 Grantees are required to submit data on how well they meet their
project performance measures that they negotiate with their Education
grant managers.

^12 See Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the
Title II HEA Partnership Program: Final Report, May 2006. Department of
Education, 2006.

Under NCLBA, Education holds districts and schools accountable for
improvements in student academic achievement, and holds states accountable
for reporting on the qualifications of teachers. NCLBA set the end of the
2005-2006 school year as the deadline for teachers of core academic
subjects, such as math and science, to be highly qualified.^13 Teachers
meeting these requirements must (1) have at least a bachelor's degree, (2)
be certified to teach by their state, and (3) demonstrate subject matter
competency in each core academic subject they teach.^14 Education collects
state data on the percent of classes taught by highly qualified teachers
and conducts site visits in part to determine whether states appropriately
implemented highly qualified teacher provisions.^15

In state reviews conducted as part of its oversight of NCLBA, Education
identified several areas of concern related to states' implementation of
teacher qualification requirements and provided states feedback.^16 For
example, some states did not include the percentage of core academic
classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified in their annual
state report cards,^17 as required. In addition, because some states
inappropriately defined teachers as highly qualified, the data that these
states reported to Education were inaccurate according to a department
official. In many states, the requirements for teachers were not
sufficient to demonstrate subject matter competency. Since subject matter
competency is a key part of the definition of a highly qualified teacher,
such states' data on the extent to which teachers have met these
requirements could be misleading. Education also found that a number of
states were incorrectly defining districts as high-need, in order to make
more districts eligible for partnerships with higher education
institutions. According to Education, each of these states corrected their
data and the department will continue to monitor states to ensure they are
using the appropriate data.

^13 Although 2005-2006 was the original deadline, on October 15, 2005
Education sent a policy letter to the Chief State School Officers saying
that states that do not quite reach the 100 percent goal by the end of the
2005-2006 school year will not lose federal funds if they are implementing
the law.

^14 Veteran teachers may demonstrate subject matter competency through a
state-developed High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation,
whereby subject matter competency is established through teaching
experience, professional development, coursework, and other activities.

^15In 2003, Education aligned HEA's definition of highly qualified
teacher" to that in NCLBA.

^16 As of April 2006, Education officials had completed reviews of all
states.

^17 States must prepare and disseminate an annual report card that
includes information on student achievement and the professional
qualifications of teachers in the state, the percentage of teachers
teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of
classes in the state not taught by highly qualified teachers. These data
are presented in the aggregate and are also disaggregated by high-poverty
compared to low-poverty schools.

In addition to Education's oversight efforts, OMB completed a PART
assessment of NCLBA Title II in 2005 and rated the program as "moderately
effective." While OMB noted that the program is well-managed, it also
noted that the program has not demonstrated cost-effectiveness and that an
independent evaluation has not been completed to assess program
effectiveness. In response to OMB's assessment, Education took steps to
more efficiently monitor states and conducted two program studies related
to teacher quality. An Education official told us that the program studies
had been conducted but the department has not yet released the findings.

Concluding Observations

In conclusion, the nation's public school teachers play a key role in
educating 48 million students, the majority of our future workforce.
Recognizing the importance of teachers in improving student performance,
the federal government, through HEA and NCLBA, has committed significant
resources and put in place a series of reforms aimed at improving the
quality of teachers in the nation's classrooms. With both acts up for
reauthorization, an opportunity exists for the Congress to explore
potential interrelationships in the goals and initiatives under each act.

While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it is not
clear the extent to which they complement each other. Our separate studies
of teacher quality programs under each of the laws have found common areas
for improvement, such as data quality and assistance from Education. We
have also found that states, districts, schools, and grantees under both
laws engage in similar activities. However, not much is known about how
well, if at all, these two laws are aligned. Thus, there may be
opportunities to better understand how the two laws are working together
at the federal, state, and local level. For example, exploring links
between efforts aimed at improving teacher preparation at institutions of
higher education and efforts to improve teacher quality at the school or
district level could identify approaches to teacher preparation that help
schools the most.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I welcome any
questions you or other Members of this Subcommittee may have at this time.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
202-512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Harriet Ganson, Bryon Gordon, Elizabeth Morrison, Cara Jackson,
Rachel Valliere, Christopher Morehouse, and Jessica Botsford.

(130776)

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.

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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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
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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

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

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-861T .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact George Scott, (202) 512-5932,
[email protected]..

Highlights of [21]GAO-07-861T , a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives

May 17, 2007

TEACHER QUALITY

Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts

Teachers are the single largest resource in our nation's elementary and
secondary education system. However, according to recent research, many
teachers lack competency in the subjects they teach. In addition, research
shows that most teacher training programs leave new teachers feeling
unprepared for the classroom.

While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the responsibility
of state and local governments and institutions of higher education, the
federal investment in enhancing teacher quality is substantial and
growing. In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to
enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom and in 2001 the Congress
passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), which established federal
requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly
qualified.

This testimony focuses on

(1) approaches used in teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA, (2)
the allowable activities under these acts and how recipients are using the
funds, and (3) how Education supports and evaluates these activities.

This testimony is based on prior GAO reports. We updated information where
appropriate.

While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA is to improve
teacher quality, some of their specific approaches differ. For example, a
major focus of HEA provisions is on the training of prospective teachers
while NCLBA provisions focus more on improving teacher quality in the
classroom and hiring highly qualified teachers. Both laws use reporting
mechanisms to increase accountability; however, HEA focuses more on
institutions of higher education while NCLBA focuses on schools and
districts. In addition, HEA and NCLBA grants are funded differently, with
HEA funds distributed through one-time competitive grants, while Title II
under NCLBA provides funds annually to all states through a formula.

Both acts provide states, districts, or grantees with the flexibility to
use funds for a broad range of activities to improve teacher quality,
including many activities that are similar, such as professional
development and recruitment. A difference is that NCLBA's Title II
specifies that teachers can be hired to reduce class-size while HEA does
not specifically mention class-size reduction. Districts chose to spend
about one-half of their NCLBA Title II funds on class-size reduction in
2004-2005. On the other hand, professional development and recruitment
efforts were the two broad areas where recipients used funds for similar
activities, although the specific activities varied somewhat. Many HEA
grantees we visited used their funds to fill teacher shortages in urban
schools or recruit teachers from nontraditional sources, such as
mid-career professionals. Districts we visited used NCLBA funds to provide
bonuses, advertise open teaching positions, and attend recruitment events,
among other activities.

Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and guidance
to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding recipients
accountable for the quality of their activities. GAO's previous work
identified areas where Education could improve its assistance on teacher
quality efforts and more effectively measure the results of these
activities. Education has made progress in addressing GAO's concerns by
disseminating more information to recipients, particularly on teacher
quality requirements, and improving how the department measures the
results of teacher quality activities by establishing definitions and
performance targets under HEA.

While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it is not
clear the extent to which they complement each other. States, districts,
schools, and grantees under both laws engage in similar activities.
However, not much is known about how well, if at all, these two laws are
aligned. Thus, there may be opportunities to better understand how the two
laws are working together at the federal, state, and local level.

References

Visible links
  12. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-6
  13. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-25
  http://www.gao.gov/
  21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-861T
*** End of document. ***