TEACHER 

PREPARATION 

PROGRAMS

Education Should 

Ensure States Identify 

Low-Performing 

Programs and 

Improve InformationSharing

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce,

House of Representatives

July 2015

GAO-15-598

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-598, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Health, 

Employment, Labor, and Pensions, Committee 

on Education and the Workforce, House of 

Representatives

July 2015

TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS

Education Should Ensure States Identify LowPerforming Programs and Improve InformationSharing

Why GAO Did This Study

TPPs play a vital role in preparing 

teachers, including helping them teach 

to new K-12 college- and career-ready 

standards recently adopted or under 

development in all states. Under Title II 

of the Higher Education Act, states 

collect information on TPPs and report 

it to Education, which reports it to the 

public. Education also administers 

competitive grant programs related to 

teacher preparation. In light of new K12 standards and questions about TPP 

quality, GAO was asked to review 

TPP, state, and federal efforts. 

This report examines: (1) state 

oversight activities, (2) state and TPP 

actions related to new K-12 standards, 

and (3) the extent to which Education 

shares information about TPP quality.

GAO reviewed relevant federal laws

and documents, surveyed all state

oversight offices (with a 100 percent 

response rate), and interviewed 

Education officials and various 

stakeholders, as well as a nongeneralizable sample of officials in five 

states with varied approaches to 

oversight and 14 TPPs in those states.

What GAO Recommends

Among other things, GAO 

recommends that Education monitor

states to ensure their compliance with 

requirements to assess whether any 

TPPs are low-performing and develop 

mechanisms to share information

about TPP quality within the agency 

and with states. Education agreed with 

our recommendations.

What GAO Found

State oversight officials reported that they approve teacher preparation programs 

(TPP) by assessing the quality of program design and analyzing candidate data 

such as program graduation rates, according to GAO’s 2014-2015 survey of 

states and the District of Columbia. However, some states reported that they do 

not assess whether TPPs are low-performing, as required by federal law. To 

receive funding under the Higher Education Act, states are required to conduct 

an assessment to identify TPPs that are low-performing. Seven states reported 

to GAO that they do not have a process to do so. State officials who reported not 

having a process in GAO’s survey cited several reasons including that they 

believed other oversight procedures were sufficient to ensure quality. Education 

officials told GAO they have not verified states’ processes to identify lowperforming TPPs. In accordance with federal internal control standards, 

Education should provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable 

laws. If states fail to assess whether TPPs are low-performing, potential teaching 

candidates may have difficulty identifying low-performing TPPs. This could result 

in teachers who are not fully prepared to educate children.

Officials in most surveyed states and all 14 of the TPPs GAO interviewed

reported making changes to prepare teaching candidates for new state K-12 

standards. Thirty-seven states reported providing TPPs with guidance about the 

new standards and a similar number of states reported adjusting their process for 

approving TPPs. Most states also required prospective teachers to pass 

licensing tests that have been modified in response to the new standards. 

Officials from all of the 14 TPPs GAO interviewed reported making changes that 

generally fell within the following three categories: (1) increasing subject-matter 

knowledge of teachers, (2) modifying coursework related to teaching techniques, 

and (3) using classroom training to provide real world experience.

Education missed opportunities to share information about TPP quality internally 

and with state oversight entities. Federal internal controls standards highlight the 

value of effective information-sharing with internal and external stakeholders. 

However, Education does not have mechanisms in place to promote regular, 

sustained information-sharing among its various program offices that support 

TPP quality because the workgroup that used to facilitate such informationsharing was discontinued. Without such a mechanism, Education cannot fully 

leverage information about TPP quality gathered by its various programs. 

Furthermore, Education’s current efforts to share information about TPP quality 

with states only reach about a third of states, according to GAO’s survey, 

although about half of all states reported that they wanted more of such 

information. Gaps in the agency’s efforts to disseminate information result from 

information-sharing being left to individual offices’ initiative rather than an 

agency-wide mechanism. Education officials acknowledged that more could be 

done to share information with states and other stakeholders. Without such 

efforts, Education may miss opportunities to support state efforts to improve TPP 

quality. For example, states may be unaware of good practices identified by 

Education that could assist them in their oversight.

View GAO-15-598. To view the related esupplement, click: GAO-15-599SP. For more 

information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at 

(617) 788-0534 or EmreyArrasM@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Letter 1

Background 4

States Assessed TPPs before Approving Them to Prepare 

Teachers but Some States Reported Not Having a Process to 

Identify Low-Performing TPPs as Required by Statute 11

Most States Provided Some Support and Oversight As TPPs 

Modified Their Programs Based on New K-12 Standards 20

Education Missed Opportunities to Support TPP Improvement 

through Its Data Reporting and Information-Sharing 24

Conclusions 32

Recommendations for Executive Action 32

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 34

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 37

Appendix III GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 40

Tables

Table 1: Examples of Teacher Preparation Program (TPP) 

Structures 5

Table 2: Summary of Education’s Title II Reporting Templates for 

States and Institutions of Higher Education (i.e. Colleges 

and Universities) that Offer Teacher Preparation 

Programs (TPP) 8

Table 3: Differences in the Sources of Information States 

Reported Using to Assess Traditional versus Alternative 

Route Teacher Preparation Programs (TPP) Seeking 

Approval 16

Figures

Figure 1. Information about Teaching Candidates that States 

Reported Using to Assess Traditional Teacher 

Preparation Programs (TPP) Seeking Approval 13

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Figure 2: Information about Graduate Effectiveness that States 

Reported using to Assess Traditional Teacher 

Preparation Programs (TPP) Seeking Approval 14

Figure 3: State Reports of Time Spent on Higher Education Act 

Title II Reports during Academic Year 2013-2014 25

Abbreviations

CAEP Council for the Accreditation of Educator

Preparation

Education U.S. Department of Education

Higher Education Act Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

INTASC Interstate Teacher Assessment and 

Support Consortium

TPP Teacher preparation program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 23, 2015

The Honorable Jared Polis

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Polis:

Teacher preparation programs (TPP) play a vital role in helping ready the 

nation’s K-12 teachers for the classroom. The role of TPPs is especially 

important as all states begin using or developing college- and careerready standards for math and English that require more complex subjectmatter understanding from K-12 students and their teachers than many 

previous state standards. According to data from the U.S. Department of 

Education (Education), approximately 500,000 teaching candidates were 

enrolled in over 2,000 TPPs during the 2012-2013 academic year.1

 1

These estimates are based on the most recent data reported by states under Title II of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, as presented on Education’s website. See 

Further, the federal government makes a substantial investment in 

preparing teachers. Students who completed bachelor’s degree 

requirements between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 and were teaching 

or considering teaching by June 2009 received an estimated $12.7 billion 

https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Home.aspx. Providers of TPPs may be institutions of higher 

education, such as colleges and universities, or other entities, such as non-profit 

organizations or public K-12 school districts. The 2,000 TPPs represent the number of 

providers that offer preparation programs for new teachers. Such providers may offer subprograms that specialize in a given area such as elementary education or high school 

math. The Title II data estimate that the 2,000 TPP providers offered more than 26,000 

sub-programs in academic year 2013-2014. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

in Federal Pell Grants and federal student loans for their undergraduate 

and graduate education.2

States have the primary responsibility for overseeing TPPs, including 

defining the types of TPPs that may operate in a given state and 

reviewing and approving TPP operations. States must also comply with 

federal reporting requirements under Title II of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965, as amended (Higher Education Act), which include assessing 

whether any TPPs are low-performing and reporting a list of lowperforming and at-risk TPPs to Education and the public.3

Given the importance of TPPs for ensuring that new teachers are ready to 

teach millions of public school children as states adopt new K-12 

standards, and the amount of federal aid that supports teacher 

Education 

plays an indirect role in supporting TPPs through various methods. In 

particular, Education collects and disseminates the data reported by 

states about TPPs, such as the number of teaching candidates enrolled in 

TPPs, pass rates for the tests candidates are required to take to be 

licensed to teach, and states’ procedures for identifying low-performing 

TPPs. Education also administers several competitive grant programs 

that fund TPP reforms, such as the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant 

Program.

 2

These estimates are based on GAO analysis of the data from U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2008/09 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study. Individuals included in the sample completed requirements for a 

bachelor’s degree between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 and may have also enrolled in 

graduate training programs related to teaching or other professions between 2008 and 

2012. They were interviewed between July 2008 and June 2009 regarding whether they 

had taught, were preparing to teach, were considering teaching, or had no plans to teach. 

The study also tracked the amount of federal student loans the individuals received 

through 2012 and Federal Pell Grant funding through 2008, which may have been used to 

pay for undergraduate TPPs, graduate TPPs, or other types of degrees offered by 

colleges or universities. TPPs that do not participate in federal financial aid programs—

which may include those operated by an entity that is not an institution of higher education 

(i.e., college or university)—would not be included in these estimates. 

3

Title II of the Higher Education Act, as amended by the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act, is codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1021-1041. Each institution of higher education that 

conducts a TPP and enrolls students receiving federal student aid is required to annually 

report certain information to the state and the general public, and each state that receives 

funds under the Higher Education Act must report annually to Education and the general 

public certain information on the TPPs in the state. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1022d-1022f for 

state and institutional reporting requirements. For the purposes of this report, we refer to 

these requirements collectively as Higher Education Act Title II reporting requirements.
Page 3 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

candidates attending many of these programs, you and Representative 

George Miller, in his role as Ranking Member of the House Committee on 

Education and the Workforce, asked us to review oversight and support 

provided to TPPs. This report examines:

1. how states oversee TPPs;

2. what states and select TPPs are doing to prepare new teachers for 

new K-12 standards; and,

3. the extent to which Education’s data reporting and other informationsharing support and encourage high quality TPPs.4

To obtain information about all three objectives, we conducted a survey of 

all 50 states and the District of Columbia, obtaining a 100 percent 

response rate. The surveys and a more complete tabulation of the results 

can be viewed at GAO-15-599SP. To obtain more detailed examples 

about states’ and TPPs’ actions and experiences, we conducted case 

studies of five states: Arizona, California, Maine, Tennessee and Virginia. 

We selected these states because they represent a variety of sizes (i.e.,

numbers of TPPs operating in the state) and approaches to overseeing 

TPPs (including how they use data about graduate effectiveness to 

evaluate TPP performance), and to reflect different types of college- and 

career-ready K-12 standards. For each case study state, we reviewed 

documents and interviewed officials from the state agency or agencies 

that oversee TPPs, two to three TPPs, and at least one K-12 school 

district. In total, we interviewed 14 TPPs in our 5 case study states. We 

ensured that this non-generalizable sample varied in a number of ways,

including whether they were located within or outside colleges and 

universities; were alternative route or traditional; and offered in-person or 

online coursework. We also interviewed U.S. Department of Education 

officials and contractors, teacher preparation researchers, organizations 

that represent TPPs, companies that test teaching candidates for state 

licensure, and other stakeholders. In addition, we reviewed relevant 

federal laws, regulations, and other documents; analyzed data collected 

pursuant to the Higher Education Act Title II reporting requirements; and 

compared Education’s actions to federal standards for internal controls 

and leading practices for data-driven program management. We also 

reviewed the reliability of select data fields of the Higher Education Act 

 4

This report focuses on TPPs that prepare teachers for an initial teaching license, and not 

other types, such as advanced licenses.
Page 4 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Title II reports published by Education regarding the number of TPPs that 

states reported identifying as low-performing or at risk of being lowperforming by: (1) reviewing agency documents, (2) interviewing relevant 

agency officials, and (3) testing the accuracy of these reporting fields for a 

non-generalizable sample of states. We determined that Education’s 

compilation of state data about the number of low-performing TPPs was 

sufficiently reliable to include in our report.

We conducted our work from March 2014 to July 2015 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

TPPs prepare teaching candidates to employ effective teaching 

techniques and gain real-world experience in the classroom. TPPs take 

many forms and may be operated by a variety of organizations (see table 

1). For example, the structure of TPPs can vary widely, from “traditional”

TPPs such as four-year undergraduate programs with student teaching 

requirements, to “alternative route” TPPs such as those wherein 

candidates serve as a classroom teacher while concurrently completing 

their coursework.

Background

Structure of TPPs
Page 5 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Table 1: Examples of Teacher Preparation Program (TPP) Structures

Types of TPP structures Examples of variation in TPP structures

Organization administering 

the TPP

• “Traditional” TPP offered by a college or university (public, non-profit, or for-profit);

• “Alternative route” TPP offered by a college or university (public, non-profit, or for-profit);

• “Alternative route” TPP offered by an organization operated outside of a college or university; or

• “Alternative route” TPP offered by a public K-12 school district.

Specialization • TPPs may be composed of multiple sub-programs that focus on a specific area of teaching such as 

elementary general education or high school mathematics. 

Length and timing of TPP • 4 year undergraduate program;

• 2 year post-baccalaureate program;

• 1 or 2 year master’s program; or

• Summer institute with periodic follow-up courses.

Method of providing subjectmatter content

• Subject-matter courses taught in subject-specific departments of a college or university (e.g. the 

math department) or

• Candidate required to demonstrate subject-matter knowledge prior to TPP enrollment, through 

previous coursework or content examinations.

Structure and content of 

classroom training

• “Student teaching” where a candidate teaches K-12 students for all or part of the day with support

from the official teacher (i.e., ”teacher of record”) and TPP supervisors, or

• Serving as the “teacher of record” with support from TPP staff. 

Format • All coursework and supervision of classroom training conducted in person;

• Most coursework online with an in-person supervisor for the classroom training; or

• Most or all coursework online, with primary classroom training supervision occurring via videorecording or other electronic communication.

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s 2013 Higher Education Act Title II report and documents and interviews from select teacher preparation programs. | GAO-15-598

Note: This table illustrates the variation among TPPs and is not intended to be exhaustive.

State oversight responsibilities related to TPPs may be held by one or 

more state agencies, including the state department of education, the 

state board of education, or a state independent standards board. States 

have discretion in how they conduct oversight of TPP quality, by, for 

example:

• defining the types of TPPs that may operate in the state, such as 

undergraduate or post-baccalaureate TPPs, or alternative route TPPs;

• reviewing and approving individual TPPs to operate and periodically 

assessing them for renewal;

State Oversight
Page 6 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

• assessing whether any TPPs in the state are low-performing, as 

required under the Higher Education Act, using criteria of the state’s 

choosing;5

• setting licensing requirements that teaching candidates must satisfy 

that often include completing an approved TPP and passing licensing 

tests that assess subject-matter knowledge or other skills.

and,

6

States are also responsible for adopting academic content standards for 

K-12 students.7 To address concerns about inadequately prepared 

students, all states are now using or developing academic standards that 

are explicitly tied to college and career preparation (referred to in this 

report as new K-12 standards). In 2010, the Council of Chief State School 

Officers and the National Governors Association spearheaded the effort 

to help states develop common college- and career-ready standards for 

grades K-12 in math and English, which resulted in the Common Core 

State Standards. As of the beginning of the 2014-15 academic year, 44 

states and the District of Columbia were using the Common Core 

Standards that were developed and published in 2010, and the remaining 

states were using or developing their own college- and career-ready 

standards.

 5

20 U.S.C. § 1022f(a). A small proportion of states also determine whether TPPs are high 

performing. According to our survey of all state oversight agencies, 9 states had such a 

process for some or all TPPs at the beginning of the 2014-2015 academic year.

6

Some states use the terms “credential” or “certificate” instead of “license.” For the 

purposes of this report, we will use the term “license” to refer to licenses, credentials or 

certificates.

7

Among other requirements, to receive funding under Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, states are required to adopt challenging 

academic content and student achievement standards for all public elementary and 

secondary school children in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science. 

20 U.S.C. § 6311(b).

College- and CareerReady Standards for

K-12 Students
Page 7 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Education does not have direct oversight authority over TPPs.8

Title II of the Higher Education Act requires states and institutions of 

higher education (referred to in this report as “colleges and universities”)

The two 

main ways it influences the quality of TPPs are (1) implementing the 

Higher Education Act Title II reporting requirements and (2) awarding and 

administering several competitive grants.

9

that conduct TPPs to annually report specific information.10,11 States and 

most colleges or universities that offer TPPs submit the required data 

using reporting templates developed by Education (see table 2).

 8

However, Education oversees compliance with Title IV of the Higher Education Act 

(which authorizes federal student aid programs) for participating institutions of higher 

education, within which some TPPs are housed. As part of its responsibilities under Title 

IV, Education also recognizes accreditors of institutions of higher education and 

accreditors of programs, departments, or schools that are part of an institution, which may 

include organizations that accredit TPPs. According to officials, in reviewing applications 

for recognition, Education focuses on factors such as an accreditation body’s internal 

controls, conflict of interest policies, and whether the body’s procedures and standards are 

widely accepted within the field. It was outside the scope of this report to review 

Education’s oversight of Title IV. For more information about accreditation of institutions of 

higher education, see GAO, Higher Education: Education Should Strengthen Oversight of 

Schools and Accreditors, GAO-15-59 (Washington D.C.: Dec. 22, 2014).

9

In this report we use the term “college or university” to mean “institution of higher 

education” as defined by the act.

10See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1022d -1022f. Education officials stated that they are authorized to 

impose a fine on a college or university for failure to provide required information, but they 

have not used this authority to date. 20 U.S.C. § 1022d(a)(3).

11Some entities operating TPPs are not institutions of higher education. The Higher 

Education Act does not require Title II reporting by entities operating TPPs that are not 

institutions of higher education. However, according to Education officials, a state may 

require these entities to cooperate with it in providing information the state needs to 

prepare the state report. 

Federal Reporting 

Requirements and 

Support

Higher Education Act Title II 

Reporting Requirements
Page 8 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Table 2: Summary of Education’s Title II Reporting Templates for States and Institutions of Higher Education (i.e. Colleges 

and Universities) that Offer Teacher Preparation Programs (TPP)

Reporting sections

Description of information reported by 

colleges and universities that offer TPPsa Description of information reported by statesb

Program information Descriptive information about TPPs such as 

the gender and race of candidates; the 

academic majors of program completers; the 

number of candidates that completed the 

program in a given year; and the average 

number of hours required for student 

teaching.

Compilation of information about TPPs in the state and

their participants.

Annual goals and assurances Description of institutions’ annual goals for 

increasing the number of teachers trained in 

shortage areas and institutions’ progress 

toward those goals.

Certification that institutions are in 

compliance with various statutorily-defined 

assurances.

Indication that TPPs in the state have provided the 

various statutorily-defined assurances, such as that 

program preparation responds to the identified needs of 

local school districts where the program completers are 

likely to teach; and that prospective general education 

teachers are prepared to teach students from specified 

populations, including students with disabilities and 

limited English proficient students. (The state report card 

does not explicitly reference “annual goals.”)

Initial teacher credential 

requirements

Not applicable Description of each teaching credential (such as a 

license) issued by the state.

State teacher standards and 

criteria for certification or 

licensure

Not applicable Yes or no questions about the state’s standards for 

teacher certification or licensure.

Pass rates and scaled scores TPP participants’ pass rates for each test 

used by the state for teacher certification or 

licensure.

A compilation of the pass rates from TPPs on each state 

certification/licensure test, as well as information such 

as the minimum passing score for each test.

Alternative routes to teacher 

certification or licensure

Not applicable Description of, and requirements for, alternative route 

TPPs approved by the state.

Criteria for assessing the 

performance of teacher 

preparation programs in the 

state

Not applicable Information about the criteria the state uses to assess 

the performance of TPPs, such as whether the state 

used criteria from national organizations.

Low-performing TPPs Information about whether TPPs have been 

approved or accredited and whether they 

have been designated by the state as lowperforming.

Description of the state’s criteria and procedures for 

identifying TPPs that are low-performing or at risk of 

being low-performing; and a list of TPPs that have been 

so identified.

Use of technology Description of how TPPs prepare teachers 

to integrate technology effectively into 

curricula and instruction, and use it 

effectively to collect, manage, and analyze 

data to improve teaching and learning. 

Description of activities that prepare teachers to 

integrate technology effectively into curricula and 

instruction, and use it effectively to collect, manage, and 

analyze data to improve teaching and learning. 

Teacher training Description of how TPPs prepare teachers 

to effectively teach students with disabilities 

and students who are limited English 

proficient.

Not applicable
Page 9 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Reporting sections

Description of information reported by 

colleges and universities that offer TPPsa Description of information reported by statesb

Shortages of highly qualified 

teachers 

Not applicable Description of the extent to which TPPs are addressing 

shortages of highly qualified teachers in the state’s 

public schools.

Efforts to improve teacher 

quality

Not applicable Description of state efforts to improve the quality of the 

current and future teaching force.

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education Higher Education Act Title II reporting templates. | GAO-15-598

Notes:

This table presents a summary of the templates developed by the Department of Education for 

reporting purposes and is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the Higher Education Act Title 

II reporting requirements for states or institutions of higher education. For the statutory reporting 

requirements, see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1022d-1022f.

a

See https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TA/IHEReportCard.pdf for a copy of the reporting template most 

colleges and universities offering TPPs used to complete reporting requirements in 2014. Not all 

colleges and universities use this template; they may also provide information using a different format 

if their state so chooses.

b

See https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TA/StateReportCard.pdf for a copy of the reporting template states 

used to complete reporting requirements in 2014.

Education is responsible for ensuring that states and colleges and 

universities offering TPPs provide the required information. The agency 

also compiles and disseminates the information to the public in annual 

reports, webpages and data spreadsheets. Education contracts with a 

private research organization (Westat) to provide states and colleges and 

universities with technical assistance in collecting the required information 

and to assist the agency in compiling, analyzing, and publishing the 

resulting data. On December 2, 2014, Education published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking, which among other things, proposed to modify the

Title II reporting requirements.12

Education administers several competitive grant programs that provide 

funding for TPP reforms. Of these competitive grants, the largest that is 

focused specifically on improving TPP quality is the Teacher Quality 

The proposed rule was available for 

public comment through February 2, 2015. As part of this rulemaking 

effort, Education has also proposed revisions to the templates for 

reporting the Title II data.

 12Teacher Preparation Issues, 79 Fed. Reg. 71,820 (Dec. 3, 2014).

Competitive Grant Programs
Page 10 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Partnership Grant program.13 In September 2014, Education selected 24 

partnerships, including TPPs and partnering school districts, to receive a 

combined $35 million in Teacher Quality Partnership grant funds to 

improve teacher preparation primarily for science, technology, 

engineering, and math teachers. The Transition to Teaching grant 

program also provides grants to recruit and retain teachers in high-need

schools and encourage the development and expansion of alternative 

route TPPs.14 Aside from these two grant programs, applicants for grants 

from the Race to the Top Fund, Investing in Innovation Fund, and 

Supporting Effective Educator Development program may also choose to 

develop proposals related to teacher preparation programs and activities, 

among other topics.15 For example, Investing in Innovation grants funded 

25 projects related to TPPs out of the 143 projects the program has 

funded during fiscal years 2010-2014.

 1320 U.S.C. §§ 1022-1022c. Education also administers grant programs that fund teacher 

preparation efforts that serve specific student populations. For example, the Indian 

Education Professional Development Grants program provided approximately $1.8 million 

in new grants for 2014. Two personnel development grant programs related to special 

education are designed to assist state agencies in reforming and improving their systems 

for teacher preparation, among other things, in order to improve results for children with 

disabilities. The Improving Teacher Quality state formula grants may also be used to 

support TPPs, among other uses. For more details on Education’s grants for teacher 

quality programs, which include teacher preparation, see GAO, Teacher Quality: 

Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education Programs Could Enhance State 

Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality. GAO-09-593 (Washington, DC: July 6, 2009).

1420 U.S.C. §§ 6681-6684. Most recently, 30 Transition to Teaching grants were awarded 

in fiscal year 2011. The program provides grants, with project periods up to 5 years, to 

state and local educational agencies, or for-profit organizations, non-profit organizations, 

or institutions of higher education collaborating with state or local educational agencies.

15The Race to the Top fund supports state reforms to K-12 education including efforts 

targeted towards developing effective teachers and leaders. Education officials told us that 

the second award phase was the most recent phase that was likely to include activities 

related to teacher preparation and the agency awarded $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2010 to 

phase two awardees. Education awarded $129 million in fiscal year 2014 from the 

Investing in Innovation Fund which provides competitive grant to applicants, such as 

partnerships between school districts or non-profits, in order to expand the implementation 

of, and investment in, innovative practices related to improving student achievement 

among other goals. Education awarded $39 million in Supporting Effective Educator 

Development Grants in fiscal year 2013—the most recent year for which the agency 

awarded new grants. This program provides grants to national non-profit organizations for 

evidence-based projects to recruit, select, and prepare or provide professional 

enhancement activities for teachers, principals, or both.
Page 11 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

All states reported that they review traditional TPPs before approving 

them to prepare new teachers and may renew approval on a periodic 

basis.16 To do this, nearly all states reported that they review TPP 

program design and data about candidates before approving them to 

prepare new teachers, and more than half also use one or more types of 

information to assess graduates’ effectiveness as teachers.17 To assess 

program design, 49 states and the District of Columbia reported in our 

survey that they assess whether TPPs seeking approval are meeting 

standards for program quality.18

 16Our case study states renewed approval for TPPs every 5 to 7 years. Title II does not 

prescribe how states are to approve TPPs.

For example, these standards may 

specify that teaching candidates should be trained to identify the 

17We define program design to mean syllabi or other course material, clinical experiences, 

and interviews with faculty and staff. Data about candidates includes: licensure 

assessment pass rates; graduation and completion rates; the results of teaching 

candidates performance assessments from pre-service clinical practice; and, surveys 

concerning TPP graduates’ satisfaction with the preparation they received from their 

program. We consider information assessing graduate effectiveness to include: surveys of 

principals and other district personnel regarding their satisfaction of recent TPP graduates;

K-12 student assessment results to measure teacher effectiveness; and, teacher 

evaluation results for recent TPP graduates.

18These standards may be state-developed standards for TPPs or teachers, or standards 

developed by others. For more information, see questions 8a – 8k in the accompanying esupplement, GAO-15-599SP.

States Assessed 

TPPs before 

Approving Them to 

Prepare Teachers 

but Some States

Reported Not Having 

a Process to Identify 

Low-Performing TPPs 

as Required by 

Statute

Almost All States 

Assessed TPP Program 

Design and Information 

about Candidates and 

More Than Half Assessed 

TPPs Based on 

Graduates’ Effectiveness
Page 12 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

appropriate teaching techniques for particular learning needs or achieve a 

particular threshold of subject matter knowledge. States also reported that 

they typically reviewed program design for traditional TPPs by reviewing 

syllabi or other course material (43 states), and interviewing TPP faculty 

or staff (41 states).19 To conduct these reviews, states reported that they 

may use teams made up of peers from other TPPs, state staff, national 

accreditation organization staff, or a combination, and make 

determinations using professional judgment.20

In addition to reviewing program design, nearly all states reported in our 

survey that they examine data about teaching candidates. Most states 

reported using data about the proportion of candidates who obtain a 

teaching license (48 states) and the proportion of candidates who 

graduate (29 states) as part of their approval process for all traditional 

TPPs (see fig. 1).

For example, when 

conducting these reviews, 43 states reported that they consider 

information collected by an external TPP accreditation organization—

such as the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation 

(CAEP)—for at least some traditional TPPs.

21

 19Unless otherwise noted, survey results are out of 51 total responses (50 states plus the 

District of Columbia). 

20In our survey, 38 states provided information about the number of TPP providers they 

approved, conditionally approved, or denied during the 2013-2014 academic year. In total, 

they reported approving a combined 345 TPP providers, placing a total of 5 under 

conditional approval, and denying approval for a total of 2 TPP providers. The other states 

reported they did not have information available about such decisions. 

21In addition to reviewing data when a TPP is up for initial approval or renewal, some 

states may also review data intermittently. Our case study states used varying approaches 

to assess data on candidates in between formal approval and renewal decisions. For 

example, one case study state had each TPP choose the data they use to measure 

effectiveness. In contrast, another case study state verified that TPPs met a minimum 

licensing test pass rate.
Page 13 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Figure 1. Information about Teaching Candidates that States Reported Using to Assess Traditional Teacher Preparation 

Programs (TPP) Seeking Approval

Notes:

These results are based on our survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In some 

instances, the wording of the original survey question has been modified for brevity and to remove 

technical terminology. See the related e-supplement, GAO-15-599SP, for the original language. 

Additionally, for information about the teaching candidate data that states used as part of their 

approval process for alternative route TPPs, see questions 9a, 9f, 9h, and 9i in the related esupplement.

a

“Pre-service assessments” could include evaluations of candidates’ performance as student 

teachers.

More than half of states reported that they also review certain information 

about graduate effectiveness when assessing TPPs for approval or 

renewal. States that incorporate this information reported doing so in 

several ways. Most commonly, 30 states reported using surveys that 

assessed principals’ and other district personnel’s satisfaction with recent 

traditional TPP graduates. Fifteen states reported assessing traditional 

TPPs based on other outcomes data such as the test scores (i.e., K-12 

student assessment results) of public school students taught by recent 

TPP graduates (see fig. 2).22

 22The data described here pertain to how states use effectiveness information to assess 

traditional TPPs. For more information about how states use effectiveness data to assess 

alternative route TPPs, see questions 9b- 9e and 9g in the accompanying e-supplement, 

For example, one of our case study states 

GAO-15-599SP.
Page 14 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

uses such data to help TPPs identify potential problem areas in the 

training they provide to teaching candidates. Officials in this state told us 

they used these data to help a TPP identify shortcomings in its social 

science program.

Figure 2: Information about Graduate Effectiveness that States Reported using to Assess Traditional Teacher Preparation 

Programs (TPP) Seeking Approval

Notes:

These results are based on our survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In some 

instances, the wording of the original survey question has been modified for brevity and to remove 

technical terminology. See the related e-supplement, GAO-15-599SP, for the original language. 

Additionally, for information about the effectiveness data that states used as part of their approval 

process for alternative route TPPs, see questions 9b- 9e and 9g in the related e-supplement.

As of the 2014-2015 academic year, at least 10 additional states reported 

that they planned to begin using graduate effectiveness information or 

expand their current use of such information as part of their approval 

process, according to our case study state interviews and several survey 

responses. For example, officials in Tennessee told us that they currently 

review some effectiveness data in their approval process and plan to 

begin reviewing recent TPP graduates’ teacher evaluation results in the 

future. Additionally, officials in Arizona told us they plan to begin 
Page 15 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

reviewing data on graduate effectiveness as part of their approval 

process. They told us that the impetus behind adding this new data is to 

better align the state’s TPP quality standards with recommended 

requirements presented by CAEP, so that TPPs that already have CAEP 

approval may receive an expedited state approval process.23

States and TPPs reported challenges collecting information on graduates’

effectiveness. Officials from 3 of our 5 case study states and 7 of the 14 

TPPs we spoke to said that collecting this type of data is difficult. For 

example, state oversight offices or TPPs would need to obtain key 

information about TPP graduates—such as performance evaluations or 

employer survey responses—from local districts and several of these 

officials noted districts may be difficult to identify or not be willing to 

provide such information. Officials in one of our case study states noted 

that it was especially challenging to obtain data on teachers who work in 

another state or in private schools. As shown in figure 2 above, states 

more commonly reported using information about the effectiveness of 

graduates teaching in public schools within their state versus information 

about those teaching in private schools or in other states.

When deciding whether to approve or renew TPPs for operation, 22 

states reported using fewer sources of information for alternative route 

TPPs compared to traditional TPPs. For example, eight states reported 

that they assessed alternative route TPPs against state developed 

standards less frequently than traditional TPPs and seven states reported 

using observations of alternative route TPP courses or experiences less 

frequently (see table 3).

 23By the fall of 2016, CAEP expects to begin evaluating TPPs against new standards that 

measure the effectiveness of new teachers and the performance of the students they 

teach.

Some States Use

Different Types of 

Information to Approve 

Alternative Route TPPs 

versus Traditional TPPs
Page 16 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Table 3: Differences in the Sources of Information States Reported Using to Assess Traditional versus Alternative Route 

Teacher Preparation Programs (TPP) Seeking Approval

Sources of information

Number of states that review 

the information less frequently 

for alternative route TPPs than 

for traditional TPPs

Number of states that review 

the information less frequently 

for traditional TPPs than for 

alternative TPPs

Consideration of decisions made, or evidence collected, by the 

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, and/or 

other relevant professional associations

16 0

Assessment of TPP against external teacher and/or TPP 

standards

8 0

Assessment of TPP against state developed standards for 

TPPs 

8 0

Results of pre-service assessments for teacher candidatesa 8 0 

Licensure assessment pass rates 7 0 

Observations of courses or clinical experiences during a site 

visit to the TPP 

7 1 

Assessment of TPP alignment with state’s K-12 academic 

content standards

6 0 

Assessment of TPP against state developed teaching 

standards

6 0

Data about TPPs (such as TPP enrollment or performance 

information) 

6 0 

Interviews with TPP faculty, staff, and/or administrators 6 1 

Source: GAO analysis of survey of state oversight entities | GAO-15-598

Notes:

These results are based on our survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In some 

instances, the wording of the original survey question has been modified for brevity and to remove 

technical terminology. This table only includes the ten information sources for which states most 

frequently reported differences between what they required from traditional and alternative route 

TPPs. For more information about the data that states used as part of their approval process for 

alternative route and traditional TPPs, see the related e-supplement, GAO-15-599SP.

a

”Pre-service assessments” could include evaluations of candidate’s performance as student 

teachers.

The differences in how states approve alternative route TPPs compared 

to traditional TPPs may be a consequence of several factors, including 

how states define alternative route TPPs and differences in state 

requirements for alternative route and traditional TPPs. For example, 

some alternative route TPPs may not include a student teaching 

requirement, so information about student teachers’ performance would 

not be relevant for making approval decisions. Additionally, in response to 

one of our survey questions, a representative from one state explained 

that the requirements for alternative route and traditional TPPs are 
Page 17 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

different because the requirements for traditional TPPs are set by state 

regulations while some alternative TPPs may be approved through other 

mechanisms.

Some states reported not having a process for identifying low-performing 

TPPs, as required under the Higher Education Act. In order to receive 

funds under the Higher Education Act, states are required to conduct an 

assessment to identify low-performing TPPs in the state and provide 

Education with an annual list of such programs and any programs at risk 

of being placed on the list.24 States have flexibility in the criteria they use 

to identify low-performing TPPs, but are required to describe those criteria 

to Education as part of their annual Title II reports. This provides an 

avenue for states to assess TPP quality and make their determinations 

public. However, officials from seven states reported in our survey that 

they did not have a process for identifying low-performing TPPs in 

academic year 2014-2015.25

In response to our follow-up inquiries, state officials who reported not 

having a process in our survey told us they believed their other oversight 

procedures are sufficient to ensure quality without having a process to 

identify low-performing TPPs or that they were in the middle of changing 

their state’s process for identifying low-performing TPPs, among other 

reasons. For example, officials in 2 of the 7 states that reported they do 

not have a process to identify low-performing programs in our survey told 

us having a process for identifying low-performing TPPs was not 

necessary to ensure that all TPPs are performing sufficiently. While it is 

possible that all TPPs are meeting states’ performance criteria and do not 

merit a low-performance designation, states are still required to conduct 

an assessment. Officials from two other states told us that they are 

developing or planning to develop a new process for identifying low-

 2420 U.S.C. § 1022f(a). States are required to assist any programs identified as lowperforming through the provision of technical assistance. For purposes of this report, when 

we refer to “low-performing” programs, we generally also include those programs at risk of 

being low-performing. Education’s December 2014 proposed rule would require states to 

report TPP performance using at least four performance levels: low-performing, at-risk, 

effective, and exceptional. It also proposes establishing required areas for states to 

consider in identifying low-performing or at-risk TPPs. See 79 Fed. Reg. 71,820 (Dec. 3, 

2014).

25The number of TPPs in these states ranged from 10 to 45 TPPs and the number of 

students enrolled in these states ranged from approximately 1,700 to 42,000 for a 

combined total of 72,000 in academic year 2012-2013.

Some States Reported 

Not Having a Process for 

Identifying Low-Performing 

TPPs, and Education 

Does Not Verify State 

Procedures
Page 18 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

performing TPPs, but do not have a process in the interim. Education 

officials told us that while states can choose to change their process from 

time to time, they are expected to use the previous process until the new 

one is implemented.

Education does not verify whether states use the process they describe in 

their Title II reports to identify low-performing programs or ensure that all 

states have such a process. According to Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government, an agency’s management should provide 

reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations.26 In addition, under the Higher Education Act, Education has 

responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data submitted in Title II 

reports.27 Education officials told us that state officials are expected to 

certify the accuracy of the Title II data they submit to Education and 

Education reviews the state reports for obvious instances of noncompliance. However, agency officials were not aware that two states did 

not describe a process to identify low-performing programs in their most 

recent Title II reports.28 Education officials also said that Education does 

not verify that states are in fact implementing the procedures they 

describe in their Title II reports, due to financial constraints. All seven 

states that reported in our survey that they did not have a process for 

identifying low-performing TPPs described a process to Education in the 

Title II report that was reported in October, 2014.29

 26GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,

Without a monitoring 

process to verify the accuracy of this information in state reports, 

Education may miss instances of noncompliance. If states are failing to 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

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

27Education is required to establish regulations to ensure the reliability, validity, integrity, 

and accuracy of the data submitted in the institutional and state report cards. 20 U.S.C. § 

1022d(c). Education is also required to ensure that states and institutions of higher 

education use fair and equitable methods in reporting the data. 20 U.S.C. § 1022g(a).

28In response to our inquiry, officials from one of these states told us that they do not 

approve any programs that do not meet all of the states’ content and teaching standards

and, therefore, would not approve any low-performing TPPs. According to the other state’s 

most recent Title II report, the state has only one TPP. In our survey, that state reported 

that they assess low-performance on a case- by-case basis.

29In its guidance on reporting information about states’ processes for identifying lowperforming TPPs, Education asks states to include the most recently available information 

without specifying a date. In our survey, conducted from November 2014 to March 2015, 

we asked states to report data for academic year 2014-2015.
Page 19 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

comply with the federal requirement to conduct an assessment to identify 

low-performing TPPs, struggling TPPs may not receive the technical 

assistance they need and potential teaching candidates or hiring school 

districts will have difficulty identifying struggling TPPs. This may impact 

the quality of training provided to new teachers and result in their being 

inadequately prepared to educate children.

The majority of states (43) reported to us that they had a process for 

identifying low-performing TPPs or TPPs that were at risk of becoming 

low-performing. The most common criteria they used to identify lowperforming TPPs were failure to meet the state’s TPP or teaching 

standards (used by 35 states) and denial or conditional approval during 

the state approval or renewal process (used by 34 states).30

According to data that states submitted as part of their Title II report, 6 

states identified one or more TPPs as low-performing and 13 states 

identified one or more TPPs as at risk of becoming low-performing in 

2013 or 2014.

Fewer states 

used teacher evaluations (9) or student assessments (8) to identify lowperforming TPPs.

31 When TPPs are identified as low-performing, the Higher 

Education Act requires that states provide them with technical 

assistance.32 Of the 6 states that identified low-performing TPPs in 2013 

or 2014, all reported in our survey that they provided technical support 

and informed the TPPs of their status. Most also publicized this status (4) 

and increased their monitoring of the TPPs (5).

 30For more information, see questions 18a- 18r in the accompanying e-supplement, 

GAO-15-599SP.

31Two of the six states that identified low-performing programs also identified programs at 

risk of becoming low-performing. U.S. Department of Education, At-Risk and LowPerforming Programs by State for 2013 and 2014, in the Title II Data Tools, accessed 

April 2015, https://title2.ed.gov/Public/DataTools/Tables.aspx.

3220 U.S.C. § 1022f(a).
Page 20 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

As states shifted to new K-12 standards, most reported taking steps to 

help TPPs prepare prospective teachers to teach lessons aligned with the 

new standards. To help TPPs understand the standards, 37 states 

reported in our survey that they provided TPPs with written resources, 

information sessions, or both.33

Apart from offering information, most states reported that they modified 

their oversight activities to verify that TPPs were aligning with new K-12 

standards. In particular, 34 states reported deliberately modifying their 

TPP approval process to assess such alignment, by, for example, 

modifying state standards for TPP quality to align them with new K-12 

All of our five case study states offered 

TPPs information about the standards using various approaches. For 

example, one state convened a half-day workshop that included 

information about the new standards, related changes to TPP oversight 

processes, and examples of how TPPs might choose to adapt to the new 

standards. Officials then posted a recording of the session and additional 

resources about the standards online. Three states reported inviting TPPs 

to K-12 conferences that discussed the new standards. Officials in one of 

those states said that this approach allowed them to foster 

communication and coordination among K-12 districts and TPPs.

 33Specifically, 19 states reported organizing or funding TPP attendance at information 

sessions that were specifically targeted to them, 22 states reported organizing or funding 

TPP attendance at information sessions that were primarily designed for K-12 school 

districts, and 32 states reported providing TPPs with written resources about the new K-12 

standards. For more information, see questions 31e, 31f and 31g in our e-supplement, 

GAO-15-599SP. 

Most States Provided 

Some Support and 

Oversight As TPPs 

Modified Their 

Programs Based on 

New K-12 Standards

New K-12 Standards

Led Most States to Offer 

TPPs Information, Adjust 

Their Approval Process, 

and Use Modified 

Licensing Tests
Page 21 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

standards.34 Twelve other states did not report modifying their approval 

process for this specific reason, but did report assessing some or all 

TPPs against standards for TPP quality that may nonetheless provide 

information about alignment. For example, the Interstate Teacher 

Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards are commonly 

used standards for TPP quality and were designed to align with the 

Common Core State Standards.35

Fewer states reported modifying their process for identifying lowperforming TPPs to assess alignment with new K-12 standards. 

Specifically, in our survey, 27 states reported taking steps to modify the 

process for identifying low-performing TPPs. For example, California 

reported modifying its process for approving TPPs to assess alignment 

with new K-12 standards. It also continued its previous practice of 

identifying TPPs as low-performing if they receive conditional renewal

decisions. In our survey, no states reported identifying a TPP as lowperforming during the 2013-2014 academic year because of limited 

alignment with K-12 standards.

According to our survey, two states 

reported placing a TPP under conditional approval due in part to limited 

alignment with new K-12 standards during the 2013-2014 academic year, 

and no states reported denying approval for this reason.

States also used modified licensing tests designed to assess individual 

teaching candidates’ preparation for the new K-12 standards, according 

to officials from the companies that develop the tests. Two national 

companies—Educational Testing Service and Pearson—developed tests 

related to math and English language arts and reported that such tests

are used by 43 states. The testing companies both reported modifying 

those tests to align with new K-12 standards, although we did not 

independently evaluate the extent of this alignment.36

 34These states reported in our survey that they took one or more of the following steps to 

help TPPs prepare teaching candidates to teach to the college- and career-ready 

standards: (a) modified state teaching and/or TPP standards or (b) modified the state’s 

TPP approval process to include assessment of the TPP’s alignment. See question 31 in 

our e-supplement, 

Among the 8 states 

GAO-15-599SP. 

35The INTASC standards were developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers.

36Within the Educational Testing Service, these tests include the Praxis Core Academic 

Skills for Educators tests and Praxis Content tests in mathematics and English language 

arts. Within Pearson, these tests include National Evaluation Series tests in reading, 

writing and mathematics. The 43 states used one or more of these exams, according to 

testing company records.
Page 22 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

that do not use such tests, 4 reported in our survey that they modified 

their licensure requirements in other ways in response to the new K-12 

standards.37 For example, all four of these states contract with testing 

companies to design customized tests and may request revisions to align 

with the new K-12 standards. Pearson officials described working with 

one such state to modify its custom tests to align with new K-12 

standards by adding more questions that measure teaching candidates’

ability to teach non-fiction texts and address how to help hypothetical K12 students understand complex subject-matter information.

All 14 TPPs we interviewed made changes that ranged from large-scale 

reforms to more modest modifications.38

• Increasing subject-matter knowledge: Officials from 11 of 14 TPPs 

described changing coursework or coursework requirements to 

ensure that teaching candidates had sufficient subject-matter 

knowledge to teach to the new K-12 standards. The three TPPs that 

did not make such changes were graduate-level programs or 

otherwise required teaching candidates to obtain a bachelor’s degree 

before attending the TPP and officials said most or all subject-matter 

knowledge should be obtained prior to starting the TPP. The TPPs 

that did make changes sometimes coordinated with other 

departments, such as math and English. For example, one TPP 

began offering courses that were co-taught by subject-area and TPP 

The changes generally fell within 

the following three categories: (1) increasing subject-matter knowledge, 

(2) modifying coursework related to teaching techniques, and (3) using 

classroom training to provide real world experience. Examples of such 

changes, and related challenges, are listed below.

 37Respondents from 2 of the 8 states reported that the state did not make modifications to 

the licensing requirements to align with new K-12 standards and the respondents from two 

states reported that they did not know whether the state had modified the licensing 

requirements for this reason.

38For example, officials from two TPPs described completely redesigning their programs 

as a direct result of the more rigorous standards and those from two others said that the 

standards helped them target and expand reforms that were already underway when the 

new K-12 standards were introduced. Conversely, one TPP provided faculty and teaching 

candidates with web links to external resources and waited to make changes to its 

courses until they were scheduled for revision. An official from another TPP who 

described the TPP’s changes as relatively modest stated that the new K-12 standards 

were well-aligned with best practices for teaching and, therefore, supported the TPP’s 

existing approach.

To Varying Degrees, 

Select TPPs Took Steps to 

Incorporate New K-12 

Standards
Page 23 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

faculty. Officials from a few TPPs stated that some academic 

departments were more receptive to modifying their curriculum than 

others, due to department priorities or other factors. For example, 

officials from one TPP observed that the new K-12 standards for 

English require the participation of teachers from multiple academic 

disciplines, but TPP faculty members who were not in the English 

department were sometimes reluctant to modify their courses 

accordingly.

• Modifying coursework related to teaching techniques: Officials 

from all but one of the 14 TPPs we contacted described modifying 

coursework related to teaching techniques. For example, officials from 

one TPP said that candidates should learn teaching techniques that 

focus on collaboration and officials from another said that it was 

important for candidates to make connections between different 

subject areas. Officials from five TPPs also said the new K-12 

standards led them to start or expand courses on teaching techniques 

that are subject-matter specific.

• Using classroom training to provide real world experience:

Officials from all 14 TPPs we spoke with highlighted the importance of 

providing candidates with ample opportunities to apply the new K-12 

standards in real classrooms and receive feedback or support from 

mentor teachers or TPP staff. For example, officials from one TPP 

and a school district said that mentor teachers can be important role 

models for teaching candidates because they can illustrate how to 

apply new teaching techniques and adapt to changing expectations. 

Officials from 9 of the 14 TPPs described assessing candidates’

preparedness for the new K-12 standards when reviewing their 

performance or soliciting district feedback about teaching candidates’

performance. However, officials from half of the TPPs we interviewed 

acknowledged the difficulty of training new teachers in real classroom 

settings. In particular, officials from 6 TPPs said that school districts 

are training veteran teachers in the new standards at varying rates, 

and officials from several TPPs observed that teaching candidates 

may not always be paired with a veteran teacher who knows the 

standards as well as the teaching candidate.

As states continue to implement the new K-12 standards, several TPPs 

we spoke with said that they planned to make further modifications. For 

example, one TPP that made a number of modifications to its program 

recently surveyed faculty and administrators to evaluate its efforts and 

identify any ongoing needs. In addition, many states are beginning to 

adopt assessments to measure K-12 students’ performance on the new 
Page 24 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

standards, and officials from five TPPs said it will be important to 

incorporate information about these assessments into their programs.

The current Title II data requirements may be of limited use in helping to 

improve the quality of TPPs and Education has not taken steps to 

evaluate whether any of them should be eliminated. Each state collects 

Title II information from colleges and universities that offer TPPs in the 

state and submits information about TPPs and some information about 

state oversight processes to Education annually. For example, they report 

the number and demographics of teaching candidates enrolled in and 

completing TPPs.39

 39Title II requires states to report the number of students in each TPP, disaggregated by 

race, ethnicity, and gender, as well as certain information on the “number of teachers 

prepared.” See 20 U.S.C. § 1022d(b)(1)(G)(ii), (b)(1)(H). As previously mentioned, the 

Higher Education Act does not require reporting by entities that are not institutions of 

higher education. However, states may also collect information from TPPs which are not 

located in institutions of higher education in order to complete their state reports.

As described below, states, TPPs, and other 

stakeholders often reported to us that, while they may use some data 

elements, others are not useful. This difference between the Title II 

information states and colleges and universities are required to report 

about TPPs and the information they and other stakeholders ultimately 

use to make decisions is contrary to leading practices for data-driven 

Education Missed 

Opportunities to 

Support TPP 

Improvement through 

Its Data Reporting 

and InformationSharing

Some Title II Data

Have Not Been Useful

to States and TPPs, but 

Education Has Not 

Assessed Whether Less 

Useful Elements Should 

be Eliminated
Page 25 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

management, which state that measures should be selected based on 

their relevance and ability to inform decisions by key stakeholders.40

Moreover, state oversight entities are important potential users of the Title 

II data, but they reported mixed views about whether the data were useful 

for their oversight, even though it takes a relatively large number of staff 

hours to prepare the data. In our survey, states most frequently reported 

spending between 21-100 staff hours completing the annual Title II statelevel reports and another 21-100 hours assisting with institution and 

program-level Title II reports. (See fig. 3).

Figure 3: State Reports of Time Spent on Higher Education Act Title II Reports 

during Academic Year 2013-2014

Note: These results are based on time estimates for state staff and contractors in our survey of all 50 

states and the District of Columbia.

 40GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005) and GAO, 

Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving 

Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004).
Page 26 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

After devoting this time to the task, 5 states said the Title II data were 

“very useful,” 19 said they were “moderately useful,” and 25 states said 

they were “neither useful nor not useful,” “slightly useful,” or “not useful.”

States most frequently reported using the Title II data to inform the 

approval process or inform state agency discussions about proposed TPP 

requirements. Very few states reported using the data to inform state 

funding decisions or to provide information to school districts that are 

hiring teachers from TPPs.41

Most of the TPPs and K-12 districts and several other stakeholders with 

whom we spoke questioned the usefulness of some Title II data to 

themselves and other stakeholders. Officials from 6 of the 14 TPPs with 

whom we spoke reported spending at least a month completing the 

annual Title II reports. Yet, 8 of the 14 TPPs told us that very little of the 

Title II data was useful to them for assessing the performance of their 

own programs. Officials from several TPPs also expressed confusion 

about the overarching goal of the Title II reporting requirements. The TPP 

officials said they have not seen any indication that other stakeholders, 

such as state and federal regulators or prospective teaching candidates, 

were using the Title II data to inform decisions. Further, none of the 

officials in the six K-12 school districts we spoke with said they use the 

Title II data when comparing TPP performance or recruiting new 

teachers. Similarly, seven researchers and stakeholder organizations we 

spoke with questioned the usefulness of some of the Title II data for 

research purposes.

Nearly every state reported some cases 

where certain requirements may not be helpful. For example, less than 

half the states told us that they use the goals and assurances section of 

the Title II reports, which includes information about institutions’ progress 

toward their goals for addressing teacher shortage areas. Further, 48 

states told us either that they are not using some sections of the Title II 

reports or that they already collect most of the useful Title II data 

elements through other mechanisms. These results suggest that, even 

among states that find the Title II data generally useful, states are 

frequently required to complete some reporting requirements that they 

report are not contributing to their oversight activities.

 41Three states reported that they used the data to inform state funding decisions and 6 

states reported that they used it to provide information to school districts that are hiring 

teachers from TPPs. See our associated e-supplement more details about the results of 

our survey, GAO-15-599SP.
Page 27 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Education officials said they have to continue to collect the current data, 

due to statutory requirements. According to Education officials, the 

agency can require states to submit new Title II data elements, but they 

do not have authority to remove existing data elements that are required 

by statute. Education described some benefits to the existing data, 

including that it provides a robust picture of the demographics of teaching 

candidates in each state, as well as the number of individuals who 

complete a program. However, Education also noted in the preamble to 

its December 2014 proposed rule that “data that are collected and 

reported have not led to an identification of significant improvements in 

teacher preparation program performance in part because the data are 

not based on meaningful indicators of program effectiveness.”42

Education officials told us they have not conducted a study to inform 

Congress or the agency about whether any current reporting 

requirements are not useful. Therefore, Education has an incomplete 

picture of the usefulness of various data fields and states and colleges 

and universities will continue submitting data that are time-consuming to 

gather and may not be contributing to state oversight, TPP improvement, 

or the public’s knowledge about TPPs.

Education permits states to report some Title II data in different ways to 

account for their differing approaches to overseeing TPPs and the 

differing structures of the TPPs themselves. This affects the consistency 

and clarity of the data that Education ultimately disseminates. Examples 

of key elements that may vary include:

• Alternative route TPPs: States may use different definitions of 

alternative route TPPs when reporting information such as the number 

of alternative route TPPs in their state and the number of teaching 

 4279 Fed. Reg. 71,820, 71,823 (Dec. 4, 2014). Among other things, Education’s proposed 

rule would modify the Title II reporting requirements to establish required indicators, such 

as student learning outcomes, for states to use in assessing and reporting on the 

performance of their TPPs. 

Education Has Not 

Identified and Publicized 

Key Limitations in

How Data Should Be 

Interpreted
Page 28 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

candidates who enroll in or complete such TPPs each year.43

• Teaching candidate enrollment: TPPs define when a teaching 

candidate is formally enrolled and these definitions may range from 

when a teaching candidate first takes a course to after they have 

completed other requirements such as a certain sequence of courses. 

Moreover, one large online TPP defines most of its teaching 

candidates as enrolled in the state where the TPP is headquartered, 

even though they live throughout the country and most likely plan to 

teach in other states. Consequently, the Title II report lists that state 

as one of the nation’s top teacher-producing states, while state 

officials told us that in fact the state faces teacher shortages.

For 

example, according to Education officials, one of the top teacherproducing states defines some TPPs as traditional TPPs that most 

states would consider alternative route TPPs. Education officials said 

that such decisions are within the states’ authority, but have 

repercussions for the consistency of national Title II data.

• Program Completers: Education’s Title II guidance defines a TPP 

completer as someone who has met all the educational or training 

requirements in a state-approved course of study for initial teacher 

certification or licensure. However, this definition allows for states or 

TPPs to choose whether they require their students to take and pass 

all state licensing tests before they can complete all of those 

educational or training requirements. As a result, different definitions 

of completer can lead to inconsistent data and make it difficult to 

make comparisons across TPPs or obtain a national picture regarding 

TPP completers.

These varying ways of calculating and reporting key Title II data have 

persisted despite Education’s efforts to clarify guidance and improve 

reporting tools. Such efforts, according to Education and its Title II 

 43Title II of the Higher Education Act specifies various information that states must report 

both for traditional TPPs and for “alternative routes to teacher certification or licensure in 

the State (including any such routes operated by entities that are not institutions of higher 

education);” however, alternative routes are not further defined by the statute. See, e.g., 

20 U.S.C. § 1022d(b)(1)(E). According to Education guidance, for Title II reporting 

purposes, an “alternative route to a teaching credential” is a teacher preparation pathway 

that primarily serves candidates that are the teacher of record in a classroom while 

participating in the route. Alternative routes to a teaching credential are defined as such by 

the state. According to the guidance, in general, a “traditional” TPP is one that primarily 

serves undergraduate students without prior teaching or work experience and leads at 

least to a bachelor’s degree. 
Page 29 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

contractor, have included clarified definitions, new guidance documents, 

some on-site technical assistance visits, and additional data checks in the 

online Title II reporting system. Several states and TPPs with whom we 

spoke praised Education’s efforts to facilitate the Title II submission 

process, noting particularly that they have received excellent technical 

assistance when they have questions about the process. However, states 

and TPPs also noted remaining challenges, such as how to interpret the 

Title II requirements within the context of each state or TPP’s specific 

circumstances.

Education identified some potential data inconsistencies, such as 

differences in state definitions of alternate route TPPs, in its most recent 

Title II annual report, which presented information about the 2009-2010 

academic year.44 However, it has not provided similar information about 

limitations of data it has disseminated since then. In more recent Title II 

data in published spreadsheets and on its website, Education does not 

include clarifications about potentially inconsistent data elements, such as

alternative route TPPs or definitions of enrollees and completers. 

Education officials told us they did not include such explanatory material 

in these other formats because they considered the explanations in the 

previous annual report to be sufficient. However, these officials also noted 

that the agency may consider adding such material in the future. By not 

providing the explanatory material, the data may be potentially misleading 

and make it difficult for users to compare across states or programs. In 

addition, by not providing these explanations, Education’s approach is not 

consistent with federal internal control standards, which require that 

pertinent information should be identified, captured, and distributed in a 

form that permits users to perform their duties efficiently.45

 44Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Preparing and 

Credentialing the Nation’s Teachers: The Secretary’s Ninth Report on Teacher Quality.

(Washington, D.C. April, 2013) This is the most recent Title II annual report that Education 

has produced, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1022d(d). It is based on data collected in 2011, 

which covers the 2009-2010 academic year.

45GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
Page 30 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Education has made few efforts to share expertise about TPP quality 

among its offices. Various offices and programs within Education 

influence TPP quality, including the Office of Postsecondary Education, 

which administers Higher Education Act Title II reporting requirements,

and several offices that administer competitive grants. However, the 

agency does not have mechanisms in place to promote regular, sustained 

information-sharing among these offices. Education officials said the 

agency and its Title II contractor occasionally create custom Title II data 

runs for Education program offices, but there is no systematic effort to 

share Title II data within the agency. Further, Education officials in one 

office that administers competitive grants related to TPP quality described 

discussing grant results internally, but did not systematically discuss TPP 

quality with staff in other offices and programs. Education formerly 

convened a teacher quality workgroup on a regular basis that included 

opportunities to share information across the agency regarding issues 

related to TPP quality. Education officials noted that such workgroups, 

particularly when operating out of high-level offices in the agency, have 

been very helpful for systematically sharing information across offices. 

However, the teacher quality workgroup has been inactive since the office 

in which it was housed reorganized in the fall of 2014 and the agency has 

not subsequently resumed these information-sharing efforts. This 

represents a missed opportunity to use relevant information to bolster the 

effectiveness of several Education programs, such as Race to the Top 

and Supporting Effective Educator Development, which fund TPP 

improvements, among other priorities. Federal internal controls standards 

emphasize that effective information-sharing efforts are those that flow 

broadly across an agency in a form that is helpful for those who need it to 

carry out their responsibilities.46

Furthermore, Education’s efforts to support or enhance TPP quality reach 

a limited number of states. For example, according to Education officials, 

several technical assistance and research entities and the office that 

administers competitive grants such as the Teacher Quality Partnership 

Grant Program have recently undertaken research or disseminated good 

practices about teacher preparation. However, in our survey, only about 

one third of states reported receiving information from Education about 

Without such mechanisms to promote 

information-sharing, programs and offices within Education may not have 

access to clear and useful information about TPP quality.

 46GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

Education Has Taken Few 

Steps to Share Information 

about Teacher Preparation 

Program Quality Internally 

and with States
Page 31 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

TPP oversight or enhancing TPP quality, and about half of all states said 

they would like additional support from Education on this topic.47 This 

suggests that Education is also missing opportunities to support states 

that could use relevant research and assistance from Education to 

enhance TPP quality. Additionally, 15 states reported in our survey that 

they oversee TPPs through an independent standards board, oversee the 

licensing of new teachers through such boards, or both. Among the eight 

such states that responded to our follow-up inquires, officials from four 

expressed concern about their access to Education resources for TPP 

improvements because they are independent from the primary state 

educational agency that has formalized relationships with Education’s 

technical assistance providers.48 Gaps in the agency’s efforts to 

disseminate information result from information- sharing being left to 

individual offices’ initiative rather than an agency-wide mechanism, and 

Education officials noted that more could be done to share information 

with states and other stakeholders. Education officials also noted that 

sharing information with states can be challenging for some competitive 

grant programs, because program funds are not always available for 

Education to use for national activities, including providing technical 

assistance to non-grantees. However, this also underscores the 

importance of Education systematically leveraging existing resources to 

disseminate knowledge about enhancing TPP quality. Federal internal 

controls standards emphasize the importance of agencies ensuring 

adequate information-sharing with key stakeholders.49 Without such an 

approach, Education may be missing opportunities to support state efforts 

to enhance TPP quality. For example, states may be unaware of 

information about good practices for TPP quality that could assist them in 

their oversight.

 47These states reported in our survey that they would like more of one or more of the 

following types of assistance: dissemination of information on best practices; one-on-one 

discussions (via phone, teleconference or in person); and/or, group conference calls, 

webinars or in-person sessions.

48In follow-up to our survey, we contacted all 15 states that oversee TPPs through an 

independent standards board, oversee new teacher licensing through such a board, or 

both, and 8 responded. 

49GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
Page 32 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

TPPs serve a vital role in preparing new teachers—and thereby, K-12 

students—for future success. The recent shift to college- and careerready K-12 standards further highlights the importance of such programs. 

Education is responsible for collecting and disseminating Higher 

Education Act Title II data and administering grant programs that provide 

an opportunity to contribute to TPPs’ continuous improvement. However, 

unless Education ensures that all states assess whether TPPs are lowperforming as required by the Higher Education Act, low-performing TPPs 

may not be identified, potentially resulting in new teachers being illprepared to teach K-12 students. Further, if Higher Education Act Title II 

reports include data elements that are not useful, states and colleges and 

universities that offer TPPs will expend unnecessary effort on collecting 

information that is unlikely to improve TPP quality. Among reporting 

requirements that are useful, if Title II reports do not include important 

limitations on how the data should be used, policymakers and

practitioners could draw incorrect conclusions based on the data. Finally, 

without increasing information-sharing within the Department and with 

states, Education may miss opportunities to disseminate information that 

could enhance TPP quality.

We recommend that the Secretary of Education take the following four 

actions:

1. Develop a risk-based, cost-effective strategy to verify that states are 

implementing a process for assessing whether any teacher 

preparation programs are low-performing.

2. Study the usefulness of Title II data elements for policymakers and 

practitioners, and, if warranted, develop a proposal for Congress to 

eliminate or revise any statutorily-required elements that are not 

providing meaningful information.

3. Identify potential limitations in the Title II data and consistently 

disclose these limitations in the reports, websites, and data tables the 

agency uses to distribute the results. This could include more detailed 

information about data elements where definitions vary substantially 

from state to state or teacher preparation program to teacher 

preparation program.

4. Develop and implement mechanisms to systematically share 

information about teacher preparation program quality with relevant 

Department of Education program offices and states (including state 

Independent Standards Boards).

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 33 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

We provided a draft of the report to the Department of Education for 

review and comment. Education’s comments are reproduced in Appendix 

II. Education agreed with our four recommendations. Regarding our first 

recommendation, Education noted that its proposed regulations include 

new requirements for how states report on TPP performance, including 

whether any TPPs are low-performing. Education anticipates that its final

regulations will guide the agency’s future efforts to monitor states’ 

processes for identifying any low-performing TPPs. While it finalizes its 

regulations, Education also plans to work closely with select states to help 

ensure they comply with Title II requirements related to identifying lowperforming TPPs. We believe that interim monitoring will be important, 

particularly if the regulations are not finalized prior to the next Title II 

reporting cycle. Education also agreed with our other three 

recommendations, stating that the agency would: examine statutorilydefined Title II reporting requirements and make recommendations to 

Congress to remove or revise requirements, as warranted; identify 

potential limitations in the Title II data and disclose such limitations in its 

reports, websites, and data tables; and, enhance information-sharing 

about TPP quality within Education and relevant state agencies.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Department of Education, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (617) 788-0534 or EmreyArrasM@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Melissa Emrey-Arras

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

The objectives of this study were to answer the following questions: (1) 

How do states oversee teacher preparation programs (TPP); (2) What are 

states and select TPPs doing to prepare new teachers for new K-12 

standards; and (3) To what extent does the U.S. Department of 

Education’s (Education) data reporting and other information-sharing 

support and encourage high quality TPPs?

We used a variety of methods to examine all three objectives. We 

reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; federal internal controls 

standards; and leading practices for program management. We also 

reviewed documents from Education, select states, and research 

organizations. We also conducted a web-based survey of the state 

entities responsible for overseeing TPPs in all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia (see below for more information about this survey). In addition, 

we conducted interviews with a wide range of stakeholders including 

Education officials and contractors; companies responsible for 

administering state licensing tests; the national accreditation organization 

for teacher preparation programs; researchers; as well as organizations 

representing teachers, teacher preparation programs, officials who head 

state departments of education, and governors. We also conducted case 

studies in 5 states. In each of these states we interviewed officials from 

state oversight entities, officials from two or three TPPs, and officials in at 

least one K-12 school district (see below for more information about these 

case study interviews). Finally, we analyzed data collected to fulfill Higher 

Education Act Title II reporting requirements and Education’s related 

reports and technical assistance guidance (see below for more 

information about this analysis).

We conducted our work from March 2014 to July 2015 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

To identify how states oversee TPPs, modified their practices in response 

to new K-12 standards, and used Higher Education Act Title II data and 

Department of Education information about TPPs, we surveyed state 

oversight entities from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, 

achieving a 100 percent response rate. The survey was administered 

from November 2014 to March 2015. The survey used self-administered, 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Survey of 50 States and 

the District of Columbia
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

electronic questionnaires that were posted on the Internet. We sent the 

survey to the official responsible for submitting each state’s Higher 

Education Act Title II reporting requirements and requested that this 

person consult with other officials in order to provide an official state 

response. We reviewed state responses and followed up by e-mail or 

telephone with select states for additional clarification and obtained 

corrected information for our final survey analysis. We also published 

survey responses in an e-publication supplemental to this report, 

“Teacher Preparation Programs: Survey of State Entities that Oversee 

Teacher Preparation Programs, an E-Supplement to GAO-15-598”

(GAO-15-599SP, July, 2015).

The quality of survey data can be affected by nonsampling error. 

Nonsampling error includes variations in how respondents interpret 

questions, respondents’ willingness to offer accurate responses, and data 

collection and processing errors. We included steps in developing the 

survey, and collecting, editing, and analyzing survey data, to minimize 

such nonsampling error. In developing the Web survey, we pretested 

draft versions of the instrument with state officials in four states and 

consulted with officials from the Department of Education to check the 

clarity of the questions and the flow and layout of the survey. On the basis 

of the pretests, we made revisions to the survey. Further, using a webbased survey also helped remove error in our data collection effort. By 

allowing state officials to enter their responses directly into an electronic 

instrument, this method automatically created a record for each state 

official in a data file and eliminated the errors associated with a manual 

data entry process. In addition, the program used to analyze the survey 

data was independently verified to ensure the accuracy of this work.

To obtain more detailed information about how states oversee teacher 

preparation; the steps that states and TPPs have taken in response to 

new K-12 standards; and, state and TPP views about Higher Education 

Act Title II reporting requirements and Department of Education grants 

and information-sharing related to TPPs, we conducted case studies of 

five states: Arizona, California, Maine, Tennessee and Virginia. We 

selected this non-generalizable sample of states because they represent 

a variety of sizes (i.e., numbers of TPPs operating in the state) and 

approaches to overseeing TPPs (including how they use data about 

graduate effectiveness to evaluate TPP performance) and to reflect 

different types of college- and career-ready K-12 standards. As part of 

these case studies, we reviewed state documents and interviewed 

officials from the state oversight agency, two to three TPPs, and at least 

Case Studies
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

one K-12 school district. In total, we interviewed 14 TPPs. We ensured 

that this non-generalizable sample of TPPs varied in a number of ways 

including whether they were located within or separate from colleges and 

universities; were alternative route or traditional; and offered in-person or 

online coursework. We also ensured that the TPPs represented a range 

of sizes and urban, suburban, and rural locations. We selected K-12 

districts that worked with these TPPs, by providing student teaching 

experiences, hiring graduates, or both. Interviews with state, TPP, and K12 district officials from Arizona, California and Maine were conducted in 

person and interviews with officials from Tennessee and Virginia were 

primarily conducted by telephone.

To assess the extent that Education’s data reporting supports and 

encourages high quality TPPs, we reviewed select state Title II reports; 

Education’s reporting templates for the state reports and institutional and 

program reports; Education’s December 2014 proposed rule;1 technical 

assistance documents developed by Education and its contractor; and 

Education’s reports, data spreadsheets and web pages that compile data 

from Title II state reports. We interviewed Education officials and 

contractors responsible for collecting, analyzing and reporting such data. 

We also compared Education’s reports, spreadsheets and web pages—

including their definitions and descriptions of the appropriate use of 

reported data—against federal standards for internal controls and leading 

practices for data-driven program management.2

 1

Teacher Preparation Issues, 79 Fed. Reg. 71,820 (Dec. 3, 2014).

We also reviewed the 

reliability of fields in Education’s Title II data spreadsheets regarding the 

number of TPPs that states reported identifying as low-performing or at 

risk of being low-performing by: (1) reviewing agency documents, (2) 

interviewing relevant agency officials, and (3) testing the accuracy of 

these reporting fields for a non-generalizable sample of states. We 

determined that Education’s compilation of state data about TPPs that 

have been identified as low-performing was sufficiently reliable to include 

in our report.

2

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

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use 

of Performance Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005) and GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a 

Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 

2004).

Analysis of Higher 

Education Act 

Title II Reports
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Education

Page 37 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Education
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Education

Page 38 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Education

Page 39 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs
Appendix III: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments

Page 40 GAO-15-598 Teacher Preparation Programs

Melissa Emrey-Arras, (617) 788-0534, EmreyArrasM@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Scott Spicer (Assistant Director); 

Barbara Steel-Lowney and Daren Sweeney (analysts-in-charge); Lucas 

Alvarez, and Hedieh Fusfield made key contributions to this report. Also 

contributing to this report were: Deborah Bland, Kate Blumenreich, 

Joanna Chan, Sarah Cornetto, Holly Dye, Kirsten Lauber, Ashley McCall, 

Sheila McCoy, Jennifer McDonald, John Mingus, Mimi Nguyen, and Tom 

James.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131303)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.