United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1995 TEACHER TRAINING

Status and Participants’

Views of Delta

Teachers Academy

GAO/RCED-95-208

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-361474 

June 29, 1995

Congressional Committees

As requested by the Senate and House conferees for the fiscal year 1995

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appropriations act, we reviewed the

Delta Teachers Academy program, which is funded primarily by the

Department. The Academy, established in 1992, is intended to help address

the educational needs of the Lower Mississippi Delta—one of the poorest,

least developed regions in the nation. The Academy seeks to address these

needs by improving the quality of elementary and secondary school

teaching in the region.

In May 1994, we issued an interim report on the program.1

 This review

(1) provides updated information on Academy activities and expenditures

and (2) describes the views of Academy participants on the program’s

effectiveness, including its impact on teaching skills and subject area

knowledge.

Results in Brief USDA funding for the Delta Teachers Academy has nearly doubled from

$2 million in fiscal year 1994 to almost $4 million in fiscal year 1995.

During this period, the Academy expects to increase the number of

teacher training days by 130 percent, from over 5,000 training days for 371

elementary and secondary school teachers in fiscal year 1994 to over

12,000 training days for 665 teachers in fiscal year 1995.

Teachers participating in the Academy have generally given it high marks.

Their evaluations show that the Academy is viewed as effective in both

increasing the understanding of academic subjects and providing new

teaching skills—the Academy’s two primary objectives. In addition,

teachers noted that the program provided benefits and opportunities

beyond those of other teacher training programs. They noted, for example,

that the university scholars who trained the teachers brought in new ideas

and perspectives from around the country and that the Academy provided

longer-term and more continuous development opportunities for

participants.

1

Delta Teachers Academy (GAO/RCED-94-213R, May 19, 1994).

Page 1 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

Background The National Education Goals, developed in 1991, and the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act underscore,2

 among other things, the (1) importance

of providing elementary and secondary school teachers with professional

development programs and (2) educational emergency that exists in rural

areas with large concentrations of children living in poverty. The act notes

that rural schools often lack the means to effectively address the needs of

these children and that intensive efforts should be made to overcome the

problems of geographic isolation, inadequate financial resources, and

other impediments to educational success.

The Delta Teachers Academy seeks to address these concerns by renewing

and enhancing the subject area knowledge and teaching skills of

elementary and secondary teachers in the Lower Mississippi Delta region.

This region, comprising the Delta areas of seven states—Arkansas, Illinois,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee—is

predominantly rural and characterized by poverty and other impediments

to education. For example, 33 percent of the Delta’s children live in

poverty, compared with 21 percent for the United States overall. (App. II

shows the locations of children living in poverty in the United States.)

The National Faculty,3

 an independent, nonprofit educational corporation,

launched the Delta Teachers Academy as a pilot program in 1992 with a

$500,000 grant from the Department of Education. In 1993, the Academy

was continued on a limited basis with about $220,000 in funding from the

BellSouth Foundation and the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. This

funding was used to support 8 of the 10 original pilot program’s teacher

teams in 1993 and 1994. In 1994 and 1995, the Academy was expanded with

grants of $1.92 million and $3.78 million, respectively, from USDA.

4

The Delta Teachers Academy does not operate its own facilities. Rather, it

conducts a series of 2-day teacher development sessions with university

scholars and teachers in participating school districts throughout the

academic year, followed by 2-week “summer institutes” on college

2

The President and the nation’s governors established the National Education Goals to focus public

attention on restructuring schools and increasing expectations for improving students’ performance.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, P.L. 103-227, expanded the number of National

Education Goals from six to eight.

3

The National Faculty was founded in 1968 by the National Endowment for the Humanities, under the

sponsorship of Phi Beta Kappa, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the American Council

on Education. Its purpose is to help American schools strengthen teaching in the humanities, arts, and

sciences.

4

The Academy continues to receive funding from nonfederal sources. As of June 6, 1995, it had

received a total of about $240,000 in private funds to start a 3-year program for a team of teachers in

Memphis.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

campuses in the region. Participants beginning the program in 1995 will

receive about 20 days of training annually for 3 consecutive years.

The 163 National Faculty scholars who have planned and taught the

sessions in fiscal years 1994-95 are experts in their academic fields and

come from over 90 universities and colleges throughout the United States.

The institutions represented include Harvard University, Spelman College,

Stanford University, and the University of Missouri. The scholars use a

variety of instructional methods—lectures, discussion groups, field trips,

films, readings, and laboratory and other hands-on workshops—to

communicate both the subject matter and pedagogy—the science of

teaching. The scholars are encouraged to relate to the teachers as peers

rather than as students—intending to create a collegial environment for

developing knowledge and skills.

The program’s selection process begins with the National Faculty staff

asking chief state school officers to recommend school districts that will

be best able to benefit from the program, using the criteria of academic

need and the clear support of local administrators. Officials of these

districts in turn select one or more disciplines to be addressed and the

teachers who will participate. The Faculty requests that participants have

at least 2 years of teaching experience and the potential for becoming

leaders who will disseminate to other teachers the skills and knowledge

learned in the Academy.

Teachers meet with program staff before their training sessions to select

the topics to be covered and to develop an agenda to meet their particular

needs. Teachers participating in the Academy are encouraged to develop

teaching plans incorporating their newly acquired skills so that they can

serve as resources for other teachers in their districts.

Activities of the

Academy

The number of teachers, teacher training days, and counties and parishes

involved in the program has increased since the Academy’s first year of

operation in 1992, as shown in table 1. (See app. IV for the counties and

parishes of the participating teachers.) In 1995, the National Faculty

expects to provide 12,037 training days. This is more than twice the

number of teacher training days provided in the previous year.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

Table 1: Academy’s Training Activity,

Fiscal Years 1992-95 Training delivered 1992 1993a 1994 1995b

Teachers 100 80 371 665

Participating counties and parishes 36 32 55 65

Teacher training days 930 376 5,238 12,037

2-week summer institutes 2 0 10 14

2-day academic sessions 10 25 95 215

aFunding for 1993 was entirely from nonfederal sources.

bEstimated.

Source: The National Faculty.

For the 215 2-day sessions in 1995, teams of about 15 teachers each will

participate in a series of academic sessions with a different scholar leading

each session. The 14 2-week summer institutes will begin in June 1995 on

Delta college campuses. Each institute will host about 40 teachers and be

led by three to four scholars. As of June 6, 1995, the Academy had

conducted about 80 percent of its 215 planned 2-day sessions and had

scheduled all of the remaining 2-day sessions and summer institutes. In

addition, in May 1995, the National Faculty began providing grants on a

pilot basis to teacher teams participating in the Academy to lead teacher

development sessions in their school districts.

Over one-third of the 1994 and 1995 training sessions focused on math

and/or science, with the remainder focused on English, history, geography,

reading, and other subjects. The scientific sessions include agricultural

issues, for example, the composition of soils and the use of pesticides and

fertilizers.

Much of the training is interdisciplinary—several subjects are combined to

view issues and solve problems. For example, in a 1994 math-science

summer institute, one laboratory session demonstrated how to model

pollution in lakes using matrices and linear equations. Another session

demonstrated how the movements and behaviors of crawfish in a tank are

quantified and how statistics help scientists interpret experimental results.

Academy

Expenditures

As stipulated in the conference report, USDA provided $3.94 million for the

Delta Teachers Academy program for fiscal year 1995, nearly doubling the

$2 million provided in 1994. Of the fiscal year 1995 amount, $3.78 million

Page 4 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

went to the National Faculty to implement the Academy’s activities. The

Department retained $157,000 for administrative expenses.5

As shown in figure 1, the National Faculty plans to spend about 47 percent

of the $3.78 million on the (1) National Faculty’s salaries, wages, and

fringe benefits and (2) program’s indirect costs (i.e., administrative

expenses). Travel expenses—primarily for scholars’ and teachers’

travel—represent the next largest share of the funding—about 20 percent.

The cost for scholar stipends; teacher costs (i.e., payments for substitute

teachers; participants’ honoraria, and site coordinator stipends); and other

costs make up the remaining 33 percent.

Figure 1: Planned Expenditures for the

Delta Teachers Academy, Fiscal Year

1995

24% • Staff Salaries & Benefits

23% • Indirect Costs

20%•

Travel Costs

13%•

Teacher Costs

•12%

Scholar Stipends

•

8%

Other Costs

Source: GAO’s analysis of data from the National Faculty.

5

USDA typically retains between 4 and 8 percent of a program’s funding to cover administrative costs.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

Participants View the

Academy as Effective

To evaluate the Academy’s effectiveness, the National Faculty administers

evaluations to teacher participants following each training session. The

organization began administering these evaluations at the program’s

inception in 1992. In February 1995, the National Faculty contracted with

Westat, Inc.,6

 to analyze more than 1,000 evaluations from the 1994

Academy training sessions. Westat’s resulting March 1995 report,

Assessment of the National Faculty’s 1994 Delta Teachers Academy,

concluded that although the evaluation was limited in scope, its “results

offer impressive evidence that the FY 1994 Academy is having a positive

impact on the participating teachers.”

In these evaluations, participants responded to questions relating to the

effectiveness of both the session and the scholar leading it. Teachers used

the following 4-point scale to rate the extent to which they agreed or

disagreed with the given statement: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =

agree, and 4 = strongly agree. According to Westat’s report, the mean

responses ranged from 3.4 to 3.8 for statements indicating that the

program accomplished the following for participants:

• increased their understanding of a subject area,

• resulted in new ideas for changing classroom teaching,

• met their goals and expectations,

• increased their enthusiasm for teaching,

• broadened their perspective,

• reinforced their sense of professionalism, and

• paired them with scholars who were effective teachers.

Appendix III provides the 1994 mean participant evaluation scores for 65

academic sessions and 10 summer institutes.7

In addition to reviewing Westat’s report, we conducted a telephone survey

of 11 randomly selected participants to obtain their views on the

Academy’s effectiveness, both in comparison with that of other teacher

development programs and in the enhancement of their teaching and

professional skills. Our survey included teachers from six of the seven

Delta states. (See app. I for our methodology.) Once again, respondents’

6

Westat, Inc., provides survey research and evaluation services.

7

According to a National Faculty official, although 95 sessions were held in 1994, only 65 were

evaluated. Team coordinators did not collect evaluations for 10 sessions, and 20 sessions were

excluded because participants in those sessions had begun training in 1992 or 1993—pilot years that

were not included in the evaluation.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

reactions to the Academy were positive. On average, participants

responded that the Academy

• was more effective than any other teacher development program they had

participated in,

• was very effective in renewing or enhancing knowledge in one or more

academic subjects, and

• was generally effective in enhancing the teaching skills and strategies

required for teaching challenging academic content.

All 11 teachers listed a number of advantages the Academy had over other

programs, with 5 of the 11 also listing disadvantages. The most frequently

cited advantages were the scholars’ expertise and the ideas and

perspectives they brought in from around the country (cited nine times)

and the intensity and/or continuity of the program (cited nine times). The

most frequently mentioned disadvantage (cited twice) was that the

Academy was less likely to be aimed at the specific grade level taught by

the participant.

In addition, 9 out of 10 teachers8

 said that the program resulted in changes

in their curriculums or practice. For example, five teachers said that they

had increased their use of hands-on exercises—e.g., using objects that can

be manipulated to demonstrate mathematical concepts—as a result of the

Academy. In another instance, a Mississippi teacher taught her class how

to analyze the content of television and other media to determine, for

example, what messages are being conveyed in commercials. As a result of

an Academy session on literature, this teacher also eliminated from her

curriculum literature that could be viewed as demeaning to women and

minorities. In another case, a Louisiana teacher stated that her high school

did not have a geography program prior to her participation in the

Academy. However, because of the geography-related materials and

teaching ideas she received in the Academy, she was able to develop a

geography program for the school. Her school now requires every ninth

grade student to take 1 year of geography. Once a week, the students have

an atlas day, when they plot imaginative “road rallies” or use a series of

clues to spot map locations.

More Comprehensive

Evaluations Planned

The National Faculty has not yet evaluated the impact of the Academy on

participants’ teaching practices. However, it is undertaking two additional

evaluations of the program’s impact and effectiveness. For the first

8

One teacher did not answer this question.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

evaluation, Westat, Inc. is surveying 90 teacher participants to address

such issues as the Academy’s perceived impact on teachers’ (1) changing

their curriculums or practices and (2) assuming leadership roles in

curriculum development or other activities. This evaluation is scheduled

to be completed by early summer 1995.

For the second evaluation, the National Faculty is working with Westat,

Inc. to plan a more comprehensive evaluation of all Faculty programs. This

evaluation will assess, in greater depth, the questions addressed in the first

evaluation and other items, such as the Faculty’s selection and preparation

of scholars. Westat, Inc. is proposing that this evaluation include visits to

participants’ classrooms to determine the Academy’s impact on the

participants’ teaching practices. The evaluation is scheduled to be

conducted in fiscal year 1996.

The National Faculty does not plan to measure the Academy’s impact on

student achievement. According to Westat, Inc. evaluation experts, it is

difficult to demonstrate that changes in student achievement result from

one particular teacher development activity because many factors affect

student achievement. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that no

more than a few teachers from any single school typically participate in

the Academy.9

 In addition, since 1994 was the first nonpilot year, it is too

early to measure the Academy’s long-term impact on teachers’

performance.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, the president of the National

Faculty stated that our account of the Academy and its current status is

accurate and fair. (See app. V.)

We performed our work between March and June 1995 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. Our scope and

methodology are discussed in appendix I.

9

Our previous report, Precollege Math and Science Education: Department of Energy’s Precollege

Program Managed Ineffectively (GAO/HEHS-94-208, Sept. 13, 1994), noted that research in the area of

teacher enhancement and its impact on student achievement has been limited.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional

committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, the National Faculty, and other

interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon

request. Please contact me at (202) 512-5138 if you or your staff have any

questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

John W. Harman

Director, Food and

 Agriculture Issues

Page 9 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
B-361474 

List of Requesters

The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Dale L. Bumpers

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

 and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Livingston

Chairman

The Honorable David R. Obey

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Joe Skeen

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 10 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Page 11 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

14

Appendix II 

Children Living in

Poverty, 1990

16

Appendix III 

Mean Scores of

Teacher Evaluations

for 1994 Summer

Institutes and

Academic Sessions

17

Appendix IV 

Counties and Parishes

of Teacher

Participants, 1994-95

19

Appendix V 

Comments From the

National Faculty

20

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to

This Report

21

Tables Table 1: Academy’s Training Activity, Fiscal Years 1992-95 4

Table III.1: 1994 Academic Session Evaluation Results 17

Table III.2: 1994 Summer Institute Evaluation Results 18

Page 12 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Contents

Figure Figure 1: Planned Expenditures for the Delta Teachers Academy,

Fiscal Year 1995

5

Abbreviations

GAO General Accounting Office

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

Page 13 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

To obtain background information on the Delta Teachers Academy, we

interviewed officials and reviewed reports and documents and from the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General and the

Cooperative State Research and Education Extension Service; the

Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and

Improvement; the National Education Goals Panel; state departments of

education in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Illinois; Mississippi State

University’s National Center for Technology Planning; Michigan State

University’s National Center for Research on Teacher Learning; and the

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Training.

To describe the Academy program, we reviewed the National Faculty’s

grant applications, plans, budgets, status reports, schedules, participant

workbooks, and institute agendas and interviewed the National Faculty

officials.

To obtain the views of Academy participants:

• We reviewed summary statistics provided to us by Westat, Inc., for the

1994 training session evaluations from teachers who began participating in

the Academy in 1994. The evaluations were completed by 292

(100 percent) of these participants in the 1994 summer institutes and 842

(84 percent) of the 1,003 participants in the 2-day sessions.

• We surveyed 11 teacher participants by telephone. The National Faculty

provided a list of 344 teachers who participated in the Academy in 1994.

From this list, we randomly selected 35 participants to survey. After three

attempts to contact each of the 35 participants, 11 participants responded.

These participants came from six of the seven Delta states and had

attended both a summer institute and an academic session.

• In addition, we judgmentally selected and interviewed by telephone three

teachers. These teachers were selected from a list of 25 teachers identified

by the Faculty as teachers who had introduced substantive changes into

their classrooms as a result of participating in the Academy program.

To understand the issues involved in evaluating the Academy program, we

reviewed Westat’s proposals for its (1) survey of 90 teacher participants

and (2) in-depth evaluation of Faculty programs and discussed evaluation

issues with Westat officials.

We did not evaluate the impact of the program on the participants’

students because of the methodological difficulties involved in such

Page 14 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

evaluations. We also did not verify the number of participants and sessions

provided by the National Faculty.

Page 15 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Appendix II 

Children Living in Poverty, 1990

Mississippi

Delta Region

Less Than 27%

27% to Less Than 41%

41% to Less Than 55%

Greater Than 55%

Source: GAO’s analysis of data from the Bureau of the Census.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Appendix III 

Mean Scores of Teacher Evaluations for

1994 Summer Institutes and Academic

Sessions

Tables III.1 and III.2 show the mean scores, by question, on the evaluations

completed by teachers who began participating in the Academy in 1994.

The total number of evaluations completed was 1,134; 842 were for

academic sessions, and 292 were for summer institutes. The response

categories for the evaluations were the following: 1 = strongly disagree, 2

= disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree.

Table III.1: 1994 Academic Session

Evaluation Results Evaluation statement Mean

Impacts on the teacher

My understanding of my subject area has increased 3.46

My enthusiasm for teaching has increased 3.41

I have already thought of ways to change my classroom teaching as a

result of this session

3.43

Assessment of the academic sessions

The National Faculty scholar was an effective teacher 3.72

The National Faculty scholar was particularly adept at stimulating and

leading discussions

3.68

The National Faculty scholar respected the views and contributions of

program team participants

3.78

The readings/materials used by the scholar enhanced my understanding

of the issues addressed during the session

3.54

Effort and progress

I contributed to the success of the session by preparing thoroughly for it

and participating actively in it

3.43

The program team’s goals and expectations for this session were realized 3.46

Note: In 1994, teachers participated in a series of 2-day sessions during the academic year.

Source: Westat, Inc.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Appendix III 

Mean Scores of Teacher Evaluations for

1994 Summer Institutes and Academic

Sessions

Table III.2: 1994 Summer Institute Evaluation Results

Evaluation statement Mean

Impacts on the teacher

My understanding of my subject area has increased 3.54

My understanding of a related subject has increased 3.56

My perspective has been broadened by the Academy 3.76

Interaction with scholars has reinforced my sense of professionalism 3.76

My enthusiasm for teaching has been renewed 3.68

This experience has diminished the isolation of being in the classroom 3.50

I have a heightened regard for my colleagues as resources for exchanging ideas and improving my teaching 3.70

I have already thought of ways to change my classroom teaching as a result of this session 3.61

I plan to continue studying the subject areas with other program participants outside the formal structure of this summer

institute

3.61

Assessment of the academic sessions

The plenary sessions were of significant value to me 3.67

The scholars were effective teachers 3.79

The scholars were particularly adept at stimulating and leading discussions 3.76

The scholars respected the views and contributions of the associates 3.84

The readings/materials used by the scholars enhanced my understanding of the issues addressed in institute sessions 3.56

The readings and preparation required for the summer institute were challenging but reasonable and manageable 3.01

I benefited from the contribution and participation of my colleagues 3.77

The summer institute was well planned and organized 3.67

The schedule for the summer institute was well designed 3.62

Services provided by the National Faculty were of high quality 3.76

Services provided by the universities were of high quality 3.54

The overall quality of the summer institutes was excellent 3.33

Note: Each summer institute was 2 continuous weeks.

Source: Westat, Inc.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Appendix IV 

Counties and Parishes of Teacher

Participants, 1994-95

MO

Jackson


Pulaski


Saline

IL

KY

TN

MS

LA

AR

Dyer


Haywood


Lauderdale


Madison


Shelby


Tipton

Ballard


Calloway


Christian


Crittendon


Hickman


Hopkins


McCracken


Muhlenberg


Todd


Webster

Bolivar


Coahona


Desoto


Grenada


Hinds


Lafayette


Leflore


Lincoln


Marshall


Montgomery


Panola


Tate


Washington


Warren


Wilkinson


Yalobusha


Yazoo

Acadia


Allen


Catahoula


Concordia


East Baton Rouge


East Carroll


Evangeline


Franklin


Iberia


Lincoln


Orleans


Rapides


St. Charles


St. Martin

Chicot


Cross


Desha


Hot Spring


Jefferson


Lee


Mississippi


Phillips


Poinsett


Pulaski


St. Francis

Cape Girardeau


Genevieve


Pemiscot


Stoddard

Note: Shaded Delta counties are those that had teacher participants in 1994-95.

Source: GAO’s analysis of data from the National Faculty.

Page 19 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Appendix V 

Comments From the National Faculty

Page 20 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development Division

Washington, D.C.

Jerilynn B. Hoy, Assistant Director

Beverly A. Peterson, Project Leader

Rebecca L. Johnson

Mitchell B. Karpman

Luann M. Moy

(150882) Page 21 GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/RCED-95-208 Status and Views of Delta Teachers Academy