Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

March 2006 TROOPS-TOTEACHERS 

Program Brings More 

Men and Minorities to 

the Teaching 

Workforce, but 

Education Could 

Improve Management 

to Enhance Results 

 

GAO-06-265 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-265.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie Shaul at 

(202) 512-7215 or ShaulM@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-06-265, a report to 

congressional committees 

March 2006

TROOPS-TO-TEACHERS 

Program Brings More Men and Minorities 

to the Teaching Workforce, but Education 

Could Improve Management to Enhance 

Results 

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 

Source: GAO analysis of DANTES’ administrative records.

9%

teaching math

28%

not reported

11%

teaching special education

7%

teaching science

5%

teaching vocational education

3%

teaching multiple priority subjects

37%

teaching other subject areas

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. 

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 2005. 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. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of Education take steps 

to improve program management 

and better coordinate with existing 

teacher recruitment and retention 

initiatives. Education generally 

agreed with GAO’s findings and 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 32 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 34 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 36 

Related GAO Products 37 

Tables 

Table 1: Financial Assistance Provided through the Troops-toTeachers 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 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

Figures 

Figure 1: Key Legislative and Regulatory Changes in the Troops-toTeachers 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. 
Page 1 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 

 1

GAO, Troops to Teachers: Program Helped Address Teacher Shortages, GAO-01-567 

(Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001).
Page 3 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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-toTeachers 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 
Page 5 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 

degree2

 and meet any of the following four requirements: 

• They are retired from active or reserve service. 

• 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. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

• 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. 

• 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 

 3

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 § 9101(23) of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act. 
Page 7 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 

for receipt of 

financial assistance

Three years of employment 

beginning within 1 year of 

licensure at any school located 

in a high-need district or at a 

public charter school 

Three years of employment 

beginning within 1 year of 

licensure at a high-need school 

located in a high-need district 

Amount available 

per teacher 

Up to $5,000 $10,000 

Timeline for 

monetary 

disbursement 

Two installmentsa

Up to $3,000 upon enrollment 

in a certification program 

Up to $2,000 after the 

attainment of a teaching license 

Three installmentsb

$3,333.33 made at the start of 

each teaching year or, for those 

who have already received 

stipend payments, 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-toface 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 

 4

Two additional offices, New York and West Virginia, have small-scale operations and, as a 

result, do not receive any program funding. 
Page 8 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-toTeachers 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 

With regard to eligibility for financial assistance, the type of school in 

which a participant is statutorily required to teach has changed 

 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 

 (Pub. L. No. 102-484,10/23/92) 

 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) 

 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

Math

Basics

Troops

-toTeachers

Source: GAO analysis and Art Explosion.

1992

1999

2002

2005

Created program

Authorized $5,000 stipends to participants

Authorized grants to school districts that employed participants

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 districts

Changed definition of high-need schools
Page 9 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. § 6674(d)(3) and 34 C.F.R. § 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 

 5

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 10 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: 

• Transfer funds from Education to DANTES for the administration of 

the program. 

• 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: 

• Transfer the congressionally appropriated funds to DOD. 

• Oversee DANTES’ use of these dollars. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Provide support and technical assistance. 

• 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-
Page 11 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 AfricanAmerican—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. 

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. 

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 

The Program Brought 

Males and Minorities to the 

Teaching Profession 
Page 12 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 June 30, 2005 

Participant characteristics 

Troops-to-Teachers

 classroom teachers (percent)

Gender 

Male 82

Female 18

Race/ethnicity 

White/Non-Hispanic 56

African-American/Non-Hispanic 28

Hispanic/Latino 8

Other/Unknown 5

Asian/Pacific Islander 1

American Indian 1

Education 

Bachelor’s degree 56

Graduate degree 39

Other degree 5

Military branch 

Army 33

Air Force 26

Navy 15

Reserves 12

National Guard 8

Marines 4

Coast Guard 1

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 13 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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. 

Barriers to Participation 

Include Ongoing Military 

Deployments 
Page 14 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 Troopsto-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. 

 9

C. Emily Feistritzer, National Center for Education Information, Profile of Troops to 

Teachers, August 24, 2005. 
Page 15 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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. 

 10DANTES’ data includes hiring in Washington, D.C.; Puerto Rico; and schools overseas. 

In Recent Years, Seven 

States Encompassed over 

Half the Teachers Hired 

from the Program, and 

Costs per Teacher Hired 

Varied Nationwide 
Page 16 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

Figure 2: Number of Troops-to-Teachers Participants Hired by State, July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2005 

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, 

Source: GAO analysis of DANTES hiring data.

Vt.

Idaho

1-50

51-100

101+

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Alaska

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ark.

Calif.

(169)

Colo.

(269)

Ga.

(220)

Idaho

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mich.

Minn.

Mo.

Mont.

Nev. Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Okla.

Oreg.

Pa.

S.Dak.

Tenn.

Tex.

(697)

Utah

Wash.

Wisc.

Wyo.

Fla.

(241)

Puerto Rico

Ariz.

(179)

Miss.

(154)

S.C.

(131)

N.C.

(137)

Va.

(199) Ky.

W.Va.

Ohio

(109)
Page 17 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. 

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 

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 

Counties within 50 miles of a base that have 5 or more hires (128)

Counties further than 50 miles from a base that have 5 or more hires (6)

Source: GAO analysis.
Page 18 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 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. 

Most Funded 

Teachers Have Been 

Recruited and 

Retained by Districts 

Designated as HighNeed, and about OneThird Reported 

Teaching in Priority 

Subject Areas 

Most Funded Teachers 

Worked in Schools Serving 

Large Percentages of 

Children Who Qualify for 

Federal Assistance 
Page 19 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

Figure 4: Types of Financial Assistance Received by Program Participants Hired 

between the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005 

 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 

 11This includes those who received both a stipend and a bonus in their financial assistance 

package. 

12Of 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. 

800

received stipend and bonus

430

received only stipend

1,460

received only bonus

Source: GAO analysis of DANTES’ administrative records.
Page 20 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 Troopsto-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 

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 
Page 21 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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. 

Between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, about one-third of 

hired Troops reported teaching in the priority areas of math, science, 

special education, and vocational education, and, based on reported data, 

37 percent reported teaching at the secondary school level. Because 

DANTES has been able to fund all qualified applicants, it has not had to 

invoke the statutory subject area selection priorities. As figure 5 

illustrates, hired teachers were spread across a variety of subject areas. 

About One-Third of 

Teachers Hired from the 

Program Reported 

Teaching Math, Science, 

Special Education, or 

Vocational Education 
Page 22 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

Figure 5: Percentage of Hired Teachers Reporting Subject Areas Taught between 

the Enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005 

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. 

Source: GAO analysis of DANTES’ administrative records.

9%

teaching math

28%

not reported

11%

teaching special education

7%

teaching science

5%

teaching vocational education

3%

teaching multiple priority subjects

37%

teaching other subject areas
Page 23 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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. 

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. 

 13Teachers 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. 

14The 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. 

Education Has Taken 

Steps to Improve 

Program Management 

but Has Not 

Effectively 

Coordinated Program 

Administration with 

Related Initiatives 

Education Has Better 

Defined High-Need 

Districts but Has Not 

Assessed the Data It Uses 

to Make High-Need School 

Determinations 
Page 24 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 

 15National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2004. U.S. 

Department of Education. 
Page 25 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 

Criteria Data sources DANTES uses 

Percent of schools or districts, as 

applicable, meeting criterion 

nationwide 

High-Need schools 

At least 50 percent of the student 

population must be eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch 

Education’s National Center for Education 

Statistics’ Common Core of Data 

39.7 

Large percentage of students qualify for 

assistance under IDEA 

Information obtained from a database 

maintained by Standard and Poor’s, known as 

SchoolMatters.com, and from contacts with 

schools omitted from the database, in which 

participants are applying or working 

School-level data not collected at the 

national level—DANTES has used 11% 

as the operational definition for “high 

percentage” 

High-Need districts 

At least 10,000 students have families with 

incomes below the poverty line 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income 

and Poverty Estimates program 

0.7a

At least 20 percent of the student 

population has families with incomes below 

the poverty line 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income 

and Poverty Estimates program 

23.4 

Between 10% and 20% of students have 

families with incomes below the poverty 

line and teachers through the program are 

employed in high-need schools 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income 

and Poverty Estimates program 

Up to 37.9b

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 
Page 26 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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” 

 16GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Education Lacks Controls 

to Ensure Effective 

Allocation of Program 

Funds and Timely 

Execution of Its 

Management 

Responsibilities 
Page 27 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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. 

 17According 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. 

Education Has Not Made 

Efforts to Coordinate 

Program Administration 

with Other Federal 

Teacher Development 

Activities 
Page 28 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

Table 5: Selected Department of Education Activities to Facilitate Entrance into the Teaching Profession 

Program Mission Funding recipients Numbers served 

FY 2005 

funding 

Transition 

to 

Teaching 

To support (1) the development of new or 

enhanced alternative routes to certification and 

(2) the participation of mid-career 

professionals in these programs and their 

ultimate recruitment by and retention in highneed schools and districts. 

Grant recipients operate programs that serve 

mid-career professionals from all industries 

and trades—participation is neither limited to 

nor focused exclusively on the military. 

State and local educational 

agencies, for-profit 

organizations, 

non-profit organizations, or 

institutions of higher education 

collaborating with state or local 

educational agencies are 

eligible for 5-year grants to 

operate their programs 

164 grantees have 

received funding to 

operate their programs 

since the federal program 

began in calendar year 

2001. 

$44,900,000

TroopstoTeachers To recruit, prepare, and support former 

members of the armed forces as teachers in 

high-need schools and districts. 

Individuals participating in the 

program are eligible for 

stipends and bonuses to 

facilitate entry into the teaching 

profession 

About 8,000 individuals 

have received financial 

assistance since the 

program began in fiscal 

year 1994. 

$14,800,000

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 

 18The Transition to Teaching Program did not hold a competition for award year 2003. 
Page 29 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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, 

Conclusions 
Page 30 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 

oversight of the Troops-to-Teachers program. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 31 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 32 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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 

Page 34 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 35 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 36 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

Marnie S. Shaul (202) 512-7215, ShaulM@gao.gov 

Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant Director), Joy Gambino (Analyst-inCharge), 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. 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 37 GAO-06-265 Troops-to-Teachers 

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. 

Related GAO Products 

(130471) 
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 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER