United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, 

Committee on Education and Labor, House of 

Representatives 

TEACHER QUALITY

Approaches, 

Implementation, and 

Evaluation of Key Federal 

Efforts 

Statement of George A. Scott, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, May 17, 2007

 

GAO-07-861T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

May 17, 2007

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

TEACHER QUALITY

Approaches, Implementation, and 

Highlights of GAO-07-861T, a testimony Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts 

before the Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and

Competitiveness, Committee on Education 

and Labor, House of Representatives 

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 classsize 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. 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, scottg@gao.gov..
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 highpoverty 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. 

Page 1 GAO-07-861T 
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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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, 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, 

GAO-06-25 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-07-861T 
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. 

Teacher Quality 

Provisions under HEA 

and NCLBA Have 

Somewhat Different 

Approaches and Are 

Funded Differently 

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 

 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). 

Page 3 GAO-07-861T 
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. 

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 lowincome 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 

 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). 

Page 4 GAO-07-861T 
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

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. 

Some HEA and 

NCLBA Funds Were 

Used for Similar 

Activities As Allowed 

under Both Acts 

 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. 

Page 5 GAO-07-861T 
Table 1: Examples of Activities under HEA Title II and NCLBA Title II

HEA NCLBA

Reforming teacher certification or licensure 

requirements 

Reforming teacher and principal 

certification or licensing requirements 

Recruitment and retention Recruitment and retention 

Professional development Professional development 

Implement reforms within teacher 

preparation programs to hold the programs 

accountable for preparing highly competent 

teachers 

Reforming tenure systems, implementing 

teacher testing for subject matter 

knowledge, and implementing teacher 

testing for State certification or licensing, 

consistent with Title II of HEA 

Providing preservice clinical experience 

and mentoring

Hiring teachers to reduce class size 

Disseminating information on effective 

practices 

Developing systems to measure the 

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 teachers Support to teachers or principals 

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 

 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. 

Page 6 GAO-07-861T 
funds spent on class-size reduction had decreased since 2002-2003, when 

57 percent of funds were used for this purpose. 

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 

Page 7 GAO-07-861T 
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. 

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 

Education Is Working 

to Provide Better 

Assistance and 

Improve Its 

Evaluation and 

Oversight Efforts 

Page 8 GAO-07-861T 
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) assessment10 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 

 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. 

Page 9 GAO-07-861T 
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.

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. 

Page 10 GAO-07-861T 
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 

 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 lowpoverty schools.

Page 11 GAO-07-861T 
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. 

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 wellmanaged, it also noted that the program has not demonstrated costeffectiveness 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. 

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. 

Concluding 

Observations 

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. 

Page 12 GAO-07-861T 
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I welcome any 

questions you or other Members of this Subcommittee may have at this 

time. 

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. 

Page 13 GAO-07-861T 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(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. 

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 

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