Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Higher Education, Lifelong 

Learning, and Competitiveness, 

Committee on Education and Labor, 

House of Representatives 

GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

TEACHER 

PREPARATION 

Multiple Federal Education 

Offices Support Teacher 

Preparation for Instructing 

Students with Disabilities 

and English Language 

Learners, but Systematic 

Departmentwide 

Coordination Could Enhance 

This Assistance 

July 2009 

GAO-09-573 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 2009

TEACHER PREPARATION

Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher 

Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities

and English Language Learners, but Systematic 

Departmentwide Coordination Could Enhance This

Assistance 

Highlights of GAO-09-573, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and 

Competitiveness, Committee on Education 

and Labor, House of Representatives 

In 2005-2006, students with 

disabilities comprised 9 percent of 

the student population in the 

United States, and English 

language learners comprised about 

10 percent. Many of these students 

spend a majority of their time in 

the general classroom setting in 

elementary and secondary schools. 

Most teachers are initially trained 

through teacher preparation 

programs at institutions of higher 

education. GAO was asked to 

examine (1) the extent to which 

teacher preparation programs 

require preparation for general 

classroom teachers to instruct 

these student subgroups; (2) the 

role selected states play in 

preparing general classroom 

teachers to instruct these student 

subgroups; and (3) funding and 

other assistance provided by the 

U.S. Department of Education 

(Education) to help general 

classroom teachers instruct these 

student subgroups. To address 

these issues, GAO conducted a 

nationally representative survey of 

teacher preparation programs and 

interviewed officials from state and 

local educational agencies in four 

states and Education. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary 

of Education develop and implement 

a mechanism to ensure more 

systematic coordination among 

program offices that oversee 

assistance that can help general 

classroom teachers to instruct these 

student subgroups. Education agreed 

that coordination is beneficial and 

will explore the benefits of creating 

such a mechanism. 

According to GAO’s survey results, most traditional teacher preparation 

programs at institutions of higher education nationwide required at least some 

training for prospective general classroom teachers on instructing students 

with disabilities and English language learners. While the majority of 

programs required at least one course entirely focused on students with 

disabilities, no more than 20 percent of programs required at least one course 

entirely focused on English language learners. Additionally, more than half the 

programs required field experiences with students with disabilities, while less 

than a third did so for English language learners. Despite recent steps by the 

majority of programs to better prepare teachers for instructing both of these 

student subgroups, many programs faced challenges in providing this training.

The four states GAO visited—California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas—set 

varying requirements for teacher preparation programs. However, all of the 

states and school districts visited provided assistance to general classroom 

teachers to help them instruct these student subgroups. Nevertheless, these 

states and school districts cited challenges providing this training, such as 

time constraints and identifying appropriate instructional strategies. 

Six Education offices provide funding and other assistance that can help 

general classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and English 

language learners, but no departmentwide mechanism exists to coordinate 

among the offices. Ten grant programs allow grantees to use funds to help 

general classroom teachers instruct these students; Education offices also 

support research and technical assistance providers that serve policymakers 

and educators. However, Education lacks a mechanism to facilitate 

information sharing among the offices on a regular basis that could assist 

offices that have less experience with these subgroups to better understand 

student needs or integrate research findings into ongoing programming. 

Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Research and Technical Assistance Providers

IES–Institute of Education Sciences

OII–Office of Innovation and Improvement

OPEPD–Office of Planning, Evaluation and

Policy Development

OSERS–Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services

OESE–Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education 

OELA–Office of English Language Acquisition

OII

Grant programs

Regional research and technical 

assistance providers

National research and technical

assistance providers

U.S. Department of Education

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documents and interviews with officials, Art Explosion (images).

IES

OPEPD

OSERS

OESE OELA

View GAO-09-573 or key components.

For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby 

at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

Most Traditional Teacher Preparation Programs Required at Least 

Some Training on Instructing Students with Disabilities and 

English Language Learners and Cited Challenges Preparing 

Teachers for Both Subgroups 14 

The States We Visited Set Varying Requirements for the 

Preparation of Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities 

and English Language Learners, though All Offered Ongoing 

Training to Teachers and Experienced Challenges Meeting 

Training Needs 32 

Multiple Education Offices Provide Assistance to Help Teachers 

Instruct Students with Disabilities and English Language 

Learners, but No Systematic Coordination Exists among These 

Offices 39 

Conclusions 53 

Recommendation for Executive Action 54 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 54 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 57 

Survey of Teacher Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher 

Education 57 

Site Visits to Selected States and School Districts 61 

Analysis of Education’s Survey Data 62 

Review of Education-Funded Grant Programs, Research, and 

Technical Assistance 63 

Appendix II Education-Funded Regional Research and Technical 

Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed 65 

Appendix III Education-Funded National Research and Technical 

Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed 66 

Appendix IV Comments from the U.S. Department of Education 67 
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 69 

Tables 

Table 1: Education Offices That Oversee Funding or Assistance 

That Can Support Prospective and Practicing Teachers in 

Instructing Students with Disabilities and English 

Language Learners 11 

Table 2: Ten Federal Programs Provide Funding That Can Be Used 

to Prepare General Classroom Teachers to Work with 

Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 41 

Table 3: Funding Required or Allowed to Prepare or Train 

Prospective or Practicing Teachers 45 

Table 4: Characteristics of Teacher Preparation Programs at 

Institutions of Higher Education That Responded to GAO’s 

Survey 59 

Table 5: School Districts GAO Visited in Four Selected States 62 

Table 6: Selected Regional-Level Research and Technical 

Assistance Providers 65 

Table 7: Selected National-Level Research and Technical 

Assistance Providers 66 

Figures 

Figure 1: Percentage Change in Population Ages 5 to 17 Years That 

Speaks English “Less Than Very Well,” from 1990 to 2000 7 

Figure 2: Career Path for Teachers 9 

Figure 3: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That 

Reported Requiring Courses, with Varying Levels of 

Content, on Students with Disabilities and English 

Language Learners 15 

Figure 4: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required 

at Least One Course Entirely Focused on Students with 

Disabilities and English Language Learners 17 

Figure 5: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective 

Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional 

Programs on Instructing Students with Disabilities 18 

Figure 6: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective 

Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional 

Programs on Instructing English Language Learners 19 

Page ii GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Figure 7: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That 

Required Field Experiences with Students with 

Disabilities and English Language Learners 21 

Figure 8: Types of Field Experiences Required by Traditional 

Teacher Preparation Programs for Prospective Teachers 

on Instructing Students with Disabilities and English 

Language Learners 23 

Figure 9: Program Improvements Recently Completed by Teacher 

Preparation Programs to Better Prepare Prospective 

Teachers for Instructing Students with Disabilities and 

English Language Learners 25 

Figure 10: Reasons Reported by Teacher Preparation Programs 

That Prompted Program Improvements to Better Prepare 

Prospective Teachers for Instructing Students with 

Disabilities and English Language Learners 27 

Figure 11: Challenges Faced by Teacher Preparation Programs in 

Preparing Prospective Teachers to Instruct Students with 

Disabilities and English Language Learners 29 

Figure 12: Types of Information or Assistance Reported by Teacher 

Preparation Programs That Could Greatly Benefit Their 

Efforts to Prepare Teachers to Work with Students with 

Disabilities and English Language Learners 31 

Figure 13: Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Regional and 

National Research and Technical Assistance Providers 

That Can Support Teacher Preparation to Instruct 

Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 40 

Page iii GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Abbreviations 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

ESL English as a second language 

HEA Higher Education Act 

HEOA Higher Education Opportunity Act 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IEP individualized education program 

IES Institute of Education Sciences 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

NLS-NCLB National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind 

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition 

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

OII Office of Innovation and Improvement 

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education 

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

OPEPD Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

SSI-NCLB State Survey on the Implementation of No Child Left 

 Behind 

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 iv GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Page 1 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

July 20, 2009 

The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

 Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness 

Committee on Education and Labor 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Today’s general classroom teachers face increasing student diversity in 

their classrooms, including growing numbers of students with disabilities 

and English language learners.1

 Out of the 49 million students enrolled in 

U.S. public schools in school year 2005-2006, students identified with 

disabilities and eligible for special education services under federal 

legislation comprised 9 percent of public school enrollment, and English 

language learners comprised approximately 10 percent of the student 

population. Enrollment for both of these student subgroups has been 

increasing in past years, and many of these students spend a majority of 

their time in the general classroom setting. The Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), amended and reauthorized by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), holds states, school districts, and 

individual schools accountable for the achievement of all students, 

including students in these two subgroups. However, schools have 

reported difficulty making adequate yearly progress for students with 

1

Students with disabilities refers to children served under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). A child with a disability means a child evaluated as having mental 

retardation, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a 

visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance, an orthopedic 

impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, another health impairment, a specific learning 

disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special 

education and related services. The term “English language learners” is commonly used to 

refer to students who have limited English proficiency. The No Child Left Behind Act uses 

the term “limited English proficient” in the text of the legislation. Throughout this report, 

we will use the term English language learners to refer to students who are limited English 

proficient. 
 

disabilities and English language learners.2 At the same time, a 2008 study 

funded by the U.S. Department of Education (Education) found that less 

than half of the general classroom teachers surveyed nationwide who 

received preparation to instruct students with special needs and ethnically 

diverse students said the training they received prepared them well for the 

diversity they encountered in the classroom.3

Most prospective teachers are trained through teacher preparation 

programs at institutions of higher education, and each state prescribes 

standards for these programs within its own state. In addition, state and 

local governments have traditionally had the primary responsibility for 

overseeing teacher quality, but the federal government has been redefining 

its role in this area. At the federal level, Education provides financial 

assistance to states, institutions of higher education, and school districts 

to support teacher quality, including teacher preparation and ongoing 

training for practicing teachers. The ESEA, Higher Education Act (HEA),4

and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are the key 

federal laws that authorize funding to support general classroom teachers 

to instruct these two student subgroups through various formula and 

competitive grant programs overseen by Education. Education also funds 

a number of national and regional research and technical assistance 

providers that can provide support to teachers who instruct these two 

student subgroups. 

As agreed with your office, we examined (1) the extent to which teacher 

preparation programs require preparation for general classroom teachers 

to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners and the 

challenges these programs face; (2) the role selected states play in 

 

2

NCLBA (Pub. L. No. 107-110), which amended and reauthorized ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6301 et. 

seq.), introduced the requirement that states develop plans that include academic 

standards and establish performance goals for making adequate yearly progress that would 

lead to 100 percent of their students being proficient in reading, mathematics, and science 

by 2014. Each school’s assessment data must be disaggregated in order to compare the 

achievement levels of students within certain designated groups, which include students 

with disabilities and English language learners, with the state’s proficiency targets. Each of 

these groups generally must make adequate yearly progress in order for the school to make 

adequate yearly progress. 

3

See National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda, Lessons 

Learned: New Teachers Talk About Their Jobs, Challenges and Long-Range Plans – Issue 

No. 3: Teaching in Changing Times (Naperville, IL, 2008). 

4

The Higher Education Act was reauthorized and amended by the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act (HEOA), Pub. L. No. 110-315, August 14, 2008. 

Page 2 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

preparing general classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities 

and English language learners and their challenges; and (3) the funding 

and other assistance provided by Education to states and teacher 

preparation programs to help prepare general classroom teachers to 

instruct these student subgroups. 

We used several methodologies to answer these questions. To determine 

the extent to which teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher 

education require that general classroom teachers receive preparation to 

work with students with disabilities and English language learners, we 

conducted a nationally representative survey of 374 programs randomly 

selected from the 50 states and the District of Columbia to create 

estimates about the population of all teacher preparation programs. We 

had a response rate of 81 percent, and all estimates from our survey have a 

margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points, unless otherwise 

noted, at the 95 percent confidence level. To understand the role of 

selected states in preparing both prospective and practicing teachers to 

work with these student subgroups, we interviewed officials at state 

agencies and local school districts, as well as teachers, in four states—

California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas. We selected states that met a 

range of conditions, primarily focusing on states either with a high 

percentage of the population ages 5 to 21 who speak English “less than 

very well” or experiencing population growth in this student subgroup, as 

well as geographic diversity. We also took into consideration states with 

higher-than-average percentages of students with disabilities served under 

IDEA, Part B, who spent more than 80 percent of their day in a general 

education classroom.5

 To review Education’s funding and other 

assistance, we compiled a list, verified by Education officials, of majo

relevant federal grant programs from the 2008 Guide to U.S. Depart

of Education Programs. For each program, we reviewed what was know

about how much of the funding was used in the 2007-2008 school year to 

prepare general classroom teachers, statutory requirements, and 

performance goals. We also interviewed officials from Educationsupported national research and technical assistance providers with a 

major focus on students with disabilities, English language learners, or 

teacher preparation. Finally, we selected regional providers of research 

and technical assistance for interviews that served our four selected 

r 

ment 

n 

 

5

IDEA, Part B requires that students with disabilities ages 3 to 21 years, to the extent 

possible, be provided instruction in educational settings in the least restrictive 

environment, such as mainstream classrooms. 

Page 3 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

states. A more detailed explanation of our methodology can be found in 

appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2008 to July 2009 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. 

Background 

Educating Students with 

Disabilities 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the percentage 

of children and youth with disabilities who receive special education 

services under IDEA in public schools increased over 5 percent from 1976 

to 2007.6

 In fall 2007, 6 million students with disabilities received services 

under IDEA,7

 and comprised about 9 percent of the student population,8

according to the Data Accountability Center.9

 States have relatively similar 

proportions of students with disabilities served under IDEA, which can 

include students with learning disabilities, speech or language 

impairments, emotional disturbance, and autism, among other disabilities. 

IDEA was most recently reauthorized in 2004, and is the primary federal 

law that addresses the educational needs of students with disabilities.10

 

6

See M. Planty, W. Hussar, T. Snyder, S. Provasnik, G. Kena, R. Dinkes, A. KewalRamani, 

and J. Kemp, The Condition of Education 2008, NCES 2008-031, a report by the National 

Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education (Washington, D.C., 2008). Special education services through IDEA are available 

for eligible children and youth identified by a team of qualified professionals as having a 

disability that adversely affects their academic performance and as in need of special 

education and related services. 

7

Data Accountability Center, Table 1-3: Students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, 

Part B, by disability category and state: Fall 2007, 

https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.htm (accessed on Jun. 29, 2009). 

8

Data Accountability Center, Table 1-15: Students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, 

Part B, as a percentage of population, by disability and state: Fall 2007, 

https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-15.htm (accessed on Jun. 29, 2009). 

9

The Data Accountability Center receives funding through a cooperative agreement with 

Education’s Office of Special Education Programs. 

10Pub. L. No. 108-446, December 3, 2004. 

Page 4 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

This law mandates a free appropriate public education for all eligible 

children with disabilities, an individualized education program (IEP) for 

each student, and placement of these students in the least restrictive 

environment, among other provisions.11 Under the least restrictive 

environment requirement, state and local educational agencies must 

ensure that children with disabilities are educated with children who are 

nondisabled to the maximum extent appropriate. 

As a result of these provisions, many students with disabilities served 

under IDEA spend part of their day in a general education classroom. 

According to Education data for fall 2007, nearly 57 percent of students 

with disabilities served under IDEA from the ages of 6 through 21 spent 

more than 80 percent of their school day in the general classroom setting.12

Specific instructional models vary by states and school districts for 

students with disabilities. For example, in a full-inclusion model, or “pullin” model, a student spends the majority of time in a general education 

classroom, and services are brought to the student, either by a special 

education co-teacher or a consultant. In a partial-inclusion model, or “pullout” model, a student will spend part of the day in a resource classroom 

where the student receives more intensive or individualized instruction 

provided by a special education teacher. Increasingly, states and school 

districts are implementing a new model for the general education 

classroom, called Response to Intervention, aimed to help teachers 

determine and provide for the appropriate education interventions so that 

children can progress in their learning. Through this model, general 

classroom teachers, as part of a multidisciplinary team effort, can help to 

identify struggling students and monitor their progress, provide and adjust 

evidence-based academic interventions depending on a student’s 

responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities. 

 

11Each public school child who receives special education and related services must have 

an individualized education program (IEP), which is a written statement specifying, among 

other components, the goals and objectives for the student, the services that a student will 

receive, the extent to which the student will participate in the regular education setting 

with nondisabled peers, and how the student will participate in statewide assessments. 

12Data Accountability Center, Table 2-2: Students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, 

Part B, by disability category, educational environment and state: Fall 2007, 

https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_2-2.xls (accessed on Apr. 7, 2009). 

Page 5 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

A 2008 Education report found that while the overall school population 

grew by less than 3 percent from 1996 to 2006, the English language 

learner student population increased more than 60 percent and is among 

the fastest growing demographic groups of students in the country.13 The 

number and percentage of English language learners vary widely among 

states. For example, based on state-reported data to Education, five 

states—California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas—were home to 

nearly 60 percent of students identified as English language learners in 

grades kindergarten to 12 in the 2005-2006 school year.14 However, 

according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1990 to 2000, the fastest 

growing English language learner student populations were concentrated 

in other states in the Southeast, Midwest, and mountain areas of the West 

(see fig. 1). In addition, English language learners include foreign-born and 

native-born students, with several recent reports estimating that nativeborn students make up at least half of these students in the United States. 

English language learners have diverse cultural backgrounds and speak 

more than 400 languages, with almost 80 percent of these students 

speaking Spanish, according to Education. These students also include 

refugees with little formal schooling and students who are literate in their 

native languages, resulting in a range of educational needs. 

Educating English 

Language Learners 

 

13See Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic 

Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, Biennial Report to Congress on the 

Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2004–06 

(Washington, D.C., 2008). 

14See Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic 

Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, Biennial Report to Congress on the 

Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2004–06.

Page 6 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 1: Percentage Change in Population Ages 5 to 17 Years That Speaks English “Less Than Very Well,” from 1990 to 2000 

-11.5% to 0%

1% to 75%

76% to 150%

151% to 284%

Sources: GAO analysis of data from the 1990 Census and 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau.

Generally, individual school districts determine the type of instruction 

program that will best serve their English language learners, and, 

according to Education, all states have outlined statewide standards for 

English language proficiency for English language learner students. Some 

of these instruction programs develop literacy in two languages, such as 

two-way immersion, or dual language programs, which aim to develop 

Page 7 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

strong skills and proficiency in both the student’s native language and 

English. Other programs aim to develop literacy in English only, such as 

structured English immersion programs, for which all instruction is in 

English and adjusted to the proficiency level of students, so that subject 

matter is understandable. 

Career Path for Teachers Preparation for general classroom teachers involves formal training for 

initial certification, often referred to as preservice training, as well as 

ongoing training throughout a teacher’s professional career, often referred 

to as in-service training or professional development. Multiple pathways 

exist for teachers to obtain their initial certification to teach. Most 

teachers receive undergraduate degrees through teacher preparation 

programs administered by institutions of higher education. These 

traditional programs typically include courses in subject matter and 

instructional strategies, as well as field-based experiences. Under this 

traditional approach, prospective teachers must complete all of their 

certification requirements before beginning to teach. In contrast, 

alternative routes to certification, designed for prospective teachers who 

already have an undergraduate degree or perhaps an existing career in a 

different field, tend to focus mainly on instructional approaches, since 

these prospective teachers generally have subject matter expertise. 

Prospective teachers in alternative routes to certification typically begin 

teaching while continuing to take coursework needed to meet certification 

or licensure requirements. According to state-reported data submitted to 

Education, nearly 20 percent of the teachers prepared in 2003-2004 earned 

their teaching certificate through an alternative route to certification.15

About half of alternative programs are administered by institutions of 

higher education. The remainder are offered through school districts, 

 

15Alternative routes to certification are gaining in popularity. According to the most recent 

available state-reported data submitted to Education, from 2000 to 2004, the number of 

individuals who completed alternative routes to certification programs increased by almost 

40 percent. See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, The 

Secretary’s Fifth Annual Report on Teacher Quality: A Highly Qualified Teacher in 

Every Classroom (Washington, D.C., 2006). 

Page 8 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

statewide regional educational service centers,16 state departments of 

education, and other entities. 

Training for practicing teachers already in the classroom continues beyond 

completion of a teacher preparation program with training offered by states; 

school districts; and other entities, including institutions of higher education. 

Some states and school districts may offer induction or mentoring programs 

for new teachers, which could include assistance from a more experienced 

teacher, additional training, or classroom observation. Teachers can also earn 

supplemental certificates, such as an English as a second language (ESL) 

endorsement, and school districts may encourage or require teachers to 

receive additional training to earn these certifications. See figure 2 for an 

illustration of the various steps in the career path for teachers. 

 an 

Figure 2: Career Path for Teachers 

Institutions of higher education and/or 

alternative route programs

States, districts, and institutions of 

higher education

States, districts, institutions of 

higher education and other providers

Recruiting prospective teachers into the field

Traditional or alternative programs

 – Training in pedagogy

 – Acquisition of subject matter knowledge

 – Field experiences, including student

teaching

Initial license or professional license

Mentoring or induction program 

during first years of teaching

Professional development courses

Advanced certification

License renewal

Sources: GAO analysis, Art Explosion (images).

CERTIFICATE

Advanced

CERTIFICATE

Preparation of prospective teachers

(preservice)

Certification and continuing

training for 

new practicing teachers

Ongoing professional training for 

practicing teachers (in-service) 1 2 3

Service 

providers

 

16Regional educational service centers are state and federally supported centers disbursed 

across different geographic regions designed to improve the educational effectiveness of 

their member school systems by sharing services, gathering and disseminating teaching 

tools, and providing training to teachers on issues that arise within their particular school 

districts. 

Page 9 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

State educational agencies, local school districts, and the federal 

government support the preparation and ongoing training of general 

classroom teachers. Each state sets its own standards for teacher 

preparation programs and requirements for teacher certification. As a 

result of state-specific standards for teacher preparation programs and 

teacher certification, teachers prepared in one state may not meet the 

qualifications in another state. Nationwide, most teachers become 

certified to teach within the same state where they completed their 

preparation, but some states have higher percentages of teachers trained 

outside of the state. According to state-reported data submitted to 

Education, in 2003-2004, seven states reported that more than 40 percent 

of their newly certified teachers received their initial preparation outside 

the state they were working in.17 Some states prescribe ongoing 

professional development standards that teachers must meet in order to 

maintain their certification and are also responsible for monitoring and 

assisting their school districts. 

State and Federal Support 

for Teacher Preparation 

In line with Education’s strategic goal outlined in its fiscal year 2009 

Performance Plan to improve student achievement with a focus on 

bringing all students to grade level by 2014, as required by ESEA, and to 

ensure that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers, Education 

provides financial support and other assistance to state and local 

educational agencies that can be used to help general classroom teachers 

instruct these two student subgroups. Financial support is provided 

through a number of formula and competitive grants.18 These grant 

programs provide billions of dollars to state educational agencies, school 

districts, and institutions of higher education, as well as other entities, and 

are administered by different Education offices. Other federal assistance 

includes research and technical assistance directly from Education offices 

or indirectly via about 100 regional and national technical assistance 

providers supported by the agency. Six offices within Education oversee 

 

17These states were Alaska, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, 

and Wyoming. See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, The 

Secretary’s Fifth Annual Report on Teacher Quality: A Highly Qualified Teacher in 

Every Classroom. 

18Formula grant programs are noncompetitive awards based on a predetermined formula. 

The eligible recipients for Education’s formula grant programs are state educational 

agencies that then pass much of the funding through to local educational agencies. 

Competitive, or discretionary, grants are awarded on the basis of a competitive process. 

Education reviews applications based on established criteria to determine which 

applications best address the program requirements. 

Page 10 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

funding, research, and technical assistance that provide support to varying 

degrees related to preparing general classroom teachers to instruct 

students with disabilities and English language learners (see table 1). 

Table 1: Education Offices That Oversee Funding or Assistance That Can Support 

Prospective and Practicing Teachers in Instructing Students with Disabilities and 

English Language Learners 

Education office Purpose 

Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES) 

Provides rigorous research on which to ground education 

practice and policy. 

Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education 

(OESE) 

Promotes academic excellence, enhances educational 

opportunities and equity for all of America’s children and 

families, and improves the quality of teaching and learning 

by providing leadership, technical assistance, and financial 

support. 

Office of English 

Language Acquisition 

(OELA) 

Provides national leadership to help ensure that English 

language learners and immigrant students attain English 

proficiency and achieve academically and assists in building 

the nation’s capacity in critical foreign languages. 

Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy 

Development (OPEPD) 

Oversees planning, evaluation, policy development, and 

budget activities within Education. 

Office of Innovation and 

Improvement (OII) 

Makes strategic investments in innovative educational 

practices through two dozen discretionary grant programs 

and coordinates the public school choice and supplemental 

educational services provisions of ESEA, as amended by 

NCLBA. 

Office of Special 

Education and 

Rehabilitative Services 

(OSERS) 

Works to improve results and outcomes for people with 

disabilities of all ages; in supporting ESEA, as amended by 

NCLBA, OSERS provides a wide array of supports to 

parents and individuals, school districts, and states in three 

main areas: special education, vocational rehabilitation, and 

research. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education documentation. 

ESEA, IDEA, and HEA are the three major laws that influence the 

preparation of teachers to work with students with disabilities and English 

language learners in general education classrooms. 

• ESEA, which was amended and reauthorized in 2001 by NCLBA, is 

designed to improve the education of all students and holds school 

districts accountable for student achievement. ESEA provides that 

students with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency 

are among four specific student subgroups for which achievement 

Page 11 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

must be monitored.19 States must set annual goals that lead to all 

students achieving proficiency in reading, mathematics, and science by 

2014. To meet adequate yearly progress for a given year, each district 

and school must show that the requisite percentage of each designated 

student group, as well as the student population as a whole, met the 

state proficiency goals on an annual assessment.20 In addition, states 

must annually assess the English language proficiency of all students 

with limited English proficiency. ESEA authorizes funding to improve 

outcomes through preparing teachers to instruct students with 

disabilities and English language learners, most notably through Titles 

I, II, and III. Title I, Part A of ESEA provides financial assistance to 

local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high 

percentages of economically disadvantaged children. Title II, Part A 

aims to improve teacher and principal quality. Title III of ESEA focuses 

on assisting school districts in achieving student progress in English 

proficiency. In addition, ESEA defines highly qualified teachers as 

those that have (1) a bachelor’s degree, (2) full state certification or 

licensure, and (3) demonstrate proficiency in the subjects they teach. 

However, while there are specific requirements for special education 

teachers, ESEA does not identify specific requirements for general 

classroom teachers to prove their skills in teaching students with 

disabilities or English language learners. 

• IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs 

of students with disabilities.21 IDEA provides formula grant funding to 

states and school districts under Part B for students with disabilities 

from the ages of 3 through 21 years. IDEA also provides competitive 

grant funds to states, institutions of higher education, and other 

entities under Part D to support personnel development and technical 

assistance and information dissemination efforts. 

• HEA authorizes competitive grants to enhance the quality of teacher 

training programs and the qualification of practicing teachers, as well 

as accountability requirements for teacher preparation programs and 

states.22 Although Congress has held states and teacher preparation 

 

19The other two subgroups include students who are economically disadvantaged and 

students who represent major racial and ethnic groups. 

20Schools must show that at least 95 percent of students in each designated student group 

participated in these assessments. 

2120 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 

2220 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. 

Page 12 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

programs accountable for the federal funds they received under HEA, 

the reauthorization of that act by the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act (HEOA) amended HEA to require annual reporting on the 

preparation of general classroom teachers to instruct students with 

disabilities and English language learners.23

In addition, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 is intended to 

strengthen the principal education research, statistics, and evaluation 

activities of Education.24 This act established the Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES). 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), 

signed into law on February 17, 2009, provides Education with an 

additional $97 billion.25 Of this amount, more than $21 billion will provide 

funding for three existing grant programs authorized by ESEA, HEA, and 

IDEA that either require or allow funds to be used to prepare general 

classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English 

language learners. The $97 billion for Education also includes $53.6 billion 

for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Local educational agencies that 

receive Fiscal Stabilization funds may use them for fiscal years 2009 to 

2011 for any activity authorized by ESEA and IDEA, which would include 

supporting programs designed to address the educational needs of 

students with disabilities and English language learners as an eligible use 

of funds. In an April 2009 report on our initial review of state usage of 

funds available through this act, we noted that only three states have had 

their proposals describing how they would use the funds designated for 

educational purposes approved by Education.26

 

23Section 205 of HEA, as added by Section 201 of the HEOA, Pub. L. No. 110-315 requires 

annual submission of three types of reports on teacher preparation and qualifications: (1) a 

report from institutions of higher education to states, (2) a report from states to the 

Secretary of Education, and (3) a report from the Secretary of Education to Congress and 

the public. 

24Pub. L. No. 107-279. 

25Pub. L. No. 111-5. 

26See GAO, Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities, 

Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential, GAO-09-580 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 23, 2009). 

Page 13 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

According to our survey, which we administered during fall 2008, most 

traditional teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher 

education nationwide required at least one course for prospective general 

classroom teachers that included content on instructing students with 

disabilities and English language learners, although the level of emphasis 

on these student subgroups in required coursework varied greatly.27 In 

addition, fewer programs required field experiences with these students, 

especially English language learners. The majority of programs recently 

took steps to improve prospective teachers’ training on instructing these 

subgroups but cited ongoing challenges to provide this training. Overall, 

about half of these programs felt that they could benefit from additional 

assistance. 

Most Traditional 

Teacher Preparation 

Programs Required at 

Least Some Training 

on Instructing 

Students with 

Disabilities and 

English Language 

Learners and Cited 

Challenges Preparing 

Teachers for Both 

Subgroups 

While Most Programs 

Required Courses That 

Include Content on These 

Subgroups, Course 

Emphasis Varied, As Well 

As Requirements for Field 

Experiences 

On the basis of responses from the random sample of teacher preparation 

programs at the institutions of higher education we surveyed, we estimate 

that most traditional teacher preparation programs nationwide require 

courses, with varying levels of emphasis, on students with disabilities and 

English language learners. As shown in figure 3, about 95 percent of these 

programs required courses that include at least some content on 

instructing students with disabilities, and about 73 percent of programs 

required courses that include at least some content on English language 

learners. The major reason cited by programs for not requiring courses 

with content on English language learners or field experiences with this 

student subgroup was that their state standards did not require this of 

teacher preparation programs. For example, state standards for teacher 

preparation programs vary in their requirements regarding course content 

and field experiences and can include limitations on the maximum number 

of program or credit hours. In addition, states vary in whether they have 

the same or different standards for traditional and alternative routes to 

 

27All estimates based on our sample are subject to sampling error. We surveyed 374 

institutions of higher education that offer teacher preparation programs and had an 81 

percent response rate. Unless otherwise noted, the margin of error for questions answered 

by these institutions is no more than plus or minus 6 percentage points at the 95 percent 

level of confidence. For more detailed information on this survey, please see appendix I. 

Page 14 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

certification programs. We estimate that about half of the institutions of 

higher education offered alternative routes to certification. Of those 

institutions of higher education that offer both traditional and alternative 

programs, the percentage of alternative routes with required courses that 

include content on these student subgroups was similar to traditional 

teacher preparation programs. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Reported Requiring 

Courses, with Varying Levels of Content, on Students with Disabilities and English 

Language Learners 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alternative

routes

Secondary

programs

Elementary

programs

Percentage

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.

Type of teacher preparation programs

Students with disabilities

English language learners

95

72

94

73

89

60

a

Notes: Data on elementary and secondary programs refer to traditional teacher preparation 

programs. Data on alternative routes to certification include programs that prepare both elementary 

and secondary general classroom teachers. 

a

These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points at the 95 percent 

confidence level. 

While the majority (67 to 73 percent) of traditional teacher preparation 

programs had at least one course entirely focused on students with 

disabilities, no more than 20 percent of programs required at least one 

course entirely focused on English language learners (see fig. 4). English 

language learners were more often a partial focus of required courses for 

Page 15 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

prospective elementary and secondary teachers. For example, programs 

were more likely to incorporate content on instructing these students as 

part of required courses entirely focused on diverse learners, including but 

not limited to English language learner students. However, fewer 

alternative routes to certification (51 percent) than traditional programs 

reported requiring courses entirely focused on students with disabilities, 

while the percentage of alternative routes that required courses entirely 

focused on English language learners was similar to traditional programs. 

In general, there is a lack of consensus regarding what makes a teacher 

effective. However, several experts we spoke with suggested an integrated 

or infused approach to incorporating content on these student subgroups 

into multiple courses for prospective teachers as a preferred method for 

preparing teachers. In addition, several experts emphasized the 

importance of collaboration among faculty members with regard to 

preparing prospective teachers to instruct these students. 

Page 16 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 4: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required at Least One 

Course Entirely Focused on Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alternative

routesa Secondaryprograms

Elementary

programs

Percentage

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.

Type of teacher preparation programs

Students with disabilities

English language learners

73

20

67

16

51

17

Notes: Data on elementary and secondary programs refer to traditional teacher preparation 

programs. Data on alternative routes to certification include programs that prepare both elementary 

and secondary general classroom teachers. 

a

These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points at the 95 percent 

confidence level. 

Most traditional teacher preparation programs reported that their required 

courses on students with disabilities included information on major 

categories of disabilities; relevant state and federal laws; and instructional 

strategies to meet the diverse needs of these students, such as 

differentiated instruction, determining and utilizing accommodations for 

instruction and assessment, and Response to Intervention (see fig. 5). 

Page 17 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 5: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs 

on Instructing Students with Disabilities 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Universal design for learninge

Appropriate use of technology

and assistive technology 

Response to Intervention

Collaborating and participating in IEP

development and implementation

Positive behavioral interventions

and supportsd

Data-driven instructionc

Determining and utilizing

accommodationsb

Differentiated instructiona

Relevant state and federal laws

Major categories of disabilities

Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on students with disabilities

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

73

75

80

81

85

86

86

88

89

90

Topics for required courses

a

Differentiated instruction refers to the use of flexible teaching approaches to benefit the individual 

learning needs of all students. 

b

Accommodations are services or support related to a student’s disability that allows him or her to 

fully access and demonstrate knowledge in a particular subject matter. 

c

Data-driven instruction refers to the use of student data to inform instruction that specifically targets 

student needs. 

d

Positive behavioral interventions and supports refers to an operational framework that guides 

selection, integration, and implementation of the best scientifically-based academic and behavioral 

practices for improving academic and behavior outcomes for all students. 

e

Universal design for learning refers to a framework for designing educational environments that helps 

all students gain knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm for learning. 

Page 18 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Programs that required specific courses on English language learners most 

often reported including topics related to communication with students 

and families and connecting lessons and instruction in ways that 

demonstrate cultural sensitivity, as shown in figure 6. Of the various topics 

we asked about in our survey related to instructing English language 

learners, the least likely topic to be included as part of the required 

courses for both elementary and secondary teachers was English language 

acquisition or development. However, experts we spoke to in the field of 

teacher preparation for English language learners emphasized the need for 

general classroom teachers to have knowledge of language acquisition. 

Figure 6: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs 

on Instructing English Language Learners 

0 20 40 60 80 100

English language acquisition or development

Strategies for effective collaboration

with ESL teachers

Relevant state and federal laws pertaining

to English language learners

Accommodating instruction appropriately

for English language learners

Connecting instruction to experiences,

home languages, and culture

Communication with families

demonstrating sensitivity to

cultural/language differences

Communication with students

demonstrating sensitivity to

cultural/language differences

Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on English language learners

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

56

60

66

73

79

80

84

Topics for required courses

Teacher preparation programs nationally varied in whether or not they 

required field experiences for prospective teachers with these student 

subgroups, but overall, a larger percentage of these programs required 

field experiences for prospective teachers with students with disabilities 

than with English language learners (see fig. 7). Examples of field 

experiences can include observing teachers, participating in the 

development of individualized education programs for students with 

disabilities, and tutoring English language learners. The National Council 

Page 19 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, a professional accrediting 

entity for institutions that prepare teachers, has identified field experien

as one of six key components that should be incorporated into these 

programs.

ce 

 

28

28The majority of teacher education institutions in 31 states have received accreditation 

from the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, and 39 states have 

adopted or adapted this entity’s standards for approval of their teacher preparation 

programs. The six key components include (1) candidate knowledge, skills, and 

professional dispositions; (2) assessment system and unit evaluation; (3) field experiences 

and clinical practices; (4) diversity; (5) faculty qualifications, performance, and 

development; and (6) unit governance and resources. Recognizing changes in the nation’s 

student population and the need for all teachers to have awareness of these student 

subgroups, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education revised its 

standards in 2008 to recommend field experiences that expose teacher candidates to 

students with disabilities and students with linguistic diversity. 

Page 20 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 7: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required Field 

Experiences with Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alternative

routesa Secondaryprograms

Elementary

programs

Percentage 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.

Type of teacher preparation programs

Students with disabilities

English language learners

58

28

51

22

28

12

Notes: For traditional elementary and secondary programs, field experiences typically occur before a 

prospective teacher becomes certified to teach. To obtain similar information on field experiences for 

alternative routes to certification, which can generally accelerate the time it takes for a prospective 

teacher to become the teacher of record in a classroom, we obtained information on field experiences 

for these programs that occurred prior to prospective teachers assuming their position as the teacher 

of record. 

a

These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points at the 95 percent 

confidence level. 

Teacher preparation programs can offer a variety of field experiences for 

prospective teachers, although our survey results indicate that 

requirements for specific types of field experiences with students with 

disabilities and English language learners are not widespread. The type of 

field experiences most often required for prospective elementary and 

secondary teachers for both student subgroups was to observe existing 

teachers working with these students in their classrooms (see fig. 8). 

However, this was required in less than half of the programs. Assisting 

teachers or other school professionals and student teaching were also 

among the most frequently reported field experiences required with these 

Page 21 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

students. While a student teaching placement is a typical component of a 

teacher preparation program, based on our survey results, less than onethird of these programs required that prospective teachers work with 

either of these student subgroups during their student teaching 

experience. However, more programs reported expecting that prospective 

teachers would gain experience working with students with disabilities 

and English language learners as part of their student teaching experience, 

than reported having formal requirements in place. 

Page 22 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 8: Types of Field Experiences Required by Traditional Teacher Preparation Programs for Prospective Teachers on 

Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Participate in English language learner,

education-related community events

Interact with families of English

language learners

Tutor English language learners

Assist teachers or other

school professionals

Student teaching

Observe teachers with English

language learners in schools

Participate in students with disabilities,

education-related community events

Interact with families of students

with disabilities

Participate in IEP meetings

Tutor students with disabilities

Assist teachers or other

school professionals

Student teaching

Observe teachers with students

with disabilities in schools

Field experiences with students with disabilities

Percentage of teacher preparation programs

Required for prospective elementary teachers

Required for prospective secondary teachers

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

Field experiences with English language learners

45

36

30

23

29

23

17

10

11

7

7

5

8

5

22

15

17

12

12

9

7

5

7

4

2

1

Page 23 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Most Programs Reported 

Taking Steps to Better 

Prepare Teachers for 

Instructing These 

Subgroups, Yet Cited 

Challenges in Providing 

This Preparation 

Based on our survey results, an estimated 70 percent of teacher 

preparation programs have taken steps in the last 3 years or were planning 

to take steps in the next 2 years to better prepare prospective elementary 

and secondary teachers to instruct students with disabilities, and 58 

percent reported having taken or planning to take steps for English 

language learners. Hiring professional education faculty with experience 

working with these students and adapting existing required courses (see 

fig. 9) were the two most likely types of program improvements recently 

taken by these programs for both student subgroups. 

Page 24 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 9: Program Improvements Recently Completed by Teacher Preparation Programs to Better Prepare Prospective 

Teachers for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Adopted new required coursesb

Adopted new requirements for field

experiences with these students

Increased collaboration with faculty

that have expertise working with

these studentsa

Adapted existing required coursesa

Hired professional education faculty

with experience working with

these studentsa

Types of program improvements

Percentage of all teacher preparation programs

Elementary programs - improvements for students with disabilities

Secondary programs - improvements for students with disabilities

Elementary programs - improvements for English language learners

Secondary programs - improvements for English language learners

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs.

59

52

42

37

45

43

40

35

44

41

29

25

29

27

28

23

26

25

20

15

a

These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less at the 95 percent 

confidence level for the responses pertaining to improvement for English language learners for 

elementary and secondary programs. 

b

The statistic for secondary programs—improvements for English language—learners has a margin of 

error of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less at the 95 percent confidence level. 

Page 25 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

In general, programs reported similar reasons for making improvements to 

better prepare teachers for instructing both student subgroups, as shown 

in figure 10. Teacher preparation programs most frequently cited input 

from faculty members as a top reason for making improvements to better 

equip teachers who instruct both student subgroups. Regarding English 

language learners, most programs cited changes in student demographics 

as a top reason for prompting these actions. In addition, over 50 percent of 

programs viewed the following as major or moderate reasons for making 

improvements: (1) new research or information on best practices, (2) 

feedback from local school districts, and (3) follow-up with program 

completers indicated a need in this area. 

Page 26 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 10: Reasons Reported by Teacher Preparation Programs That Prompted Program Improvements to Better Prepare 

Prospective Teachers for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Influence of national advocacy

or membership organizations

New state standards for teacher

preparation or licensure

Influence of national

accreditation entities

Feedback from local

school districtsa

New research or information

on best practices

Follow-up with program

completers

Changes in student

demographicsb

Input from program facultya

Reasons for improvements

Percentage of teacher preparation programsc

Students with disabilities

English language learners

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

81

76

73

68

60

70

63

69

67

49

46

45

46

30

30

a

These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less at the 95 percent 

confidence level for questions pertaining to the English language learner subgroup. 

b

We only asked about the extent to which changes in student demographics prompted program 

improvements with regard to the English language learner subgroup, given the recent growth of this 

population. In addition, this statistic has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less 

at the 95 percent confidence level. 

c

Percentages are based on the number of teacher preparation programs that listed these as major or 

moderate reasons for making improvements. 

Despite a number of recent improvements teacher preparation programs 

reported making, most institutions cited ongoing challenges in providing 

Page 27 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

this training to prepare prospective teachers for instructing both student 

subgroups. On the basis of our survey results, the challenge most frequently 

cited by institutions was not having enough program or credit hours due to 

state standards (see fig. 11). Specifically, teacher preparation programs may 

struggle to find time in their programs to include additional preparation 

related to instructing these subgroups, given state standards that can 

include limitations on the maximum number of program or credit hours 

allowed or specific topics that must be addressed in required courses. Other 

top challenges reported by institutions included difficulty arranging field 

experiences, including student teaching for prospective teachers, and 

limited faculty with experience working with these two subgroups. Based 

on these responses, it appears that the improvements most frequently being 

taken by these institutions are to address their top challenges. For example, 

programs frequently reported hiring faculty members with experience 

working with these student subgroups as a way to better prepare teachers, 

which would help to address one of the top challenges reported by these 

programs. In addition, institutions are adapting existing courses to 

incorporate content on instructing these students, possibly to help their 

programs better prepare teachers without exceeding the maximum number 

of program or credit hours required by state standards. Finally, we found 

that the challenges reported by teacher preparation programs were not 

associated with program size, indicating that even large programs with 

potentially greater access to resources face similar challenges preparing 

prospective teachers for these student subgroups. 

Page 28 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 11: Challenges Faced by Teacher Preparation Programs in Preparing Prospective Teachers to Instruct Students with 

Disabilities and English Language Learners 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lack of collaboration with special

education or ESL faculty

Awareness of research-based

practices

Addressing diverse needs among

these students

Ensuring appropriate balance

between theory and practice

Finding faculty with experience

working with these students

Finding appropriate field experiences,

including student teaching

Not enough program hours

due to state standards

Types of challenges

Percentage of teacher preparation programs

Students with disabilities

English language learners

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

60

59

54

51

41

52

40

32

35

33

14

14

6

10

While some institutions reported receiving support from state agencies 

and Education, approximately half of the teacher preparation programs 

indicated they could benefit from additional information or assistance. 

According to our survey results, during the 2007-2008 academic year, an 

estimated 64 percent of institutions received assistance from state 

agencies in preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities, and 

53 percent received assistance in preparing teachers to work with English 

language learners. Examples of assistance from state agencies included 

providing information on research-based practices or sponsoring a 

Page 29 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

statewide conference. An estimated 40 percent of these institutions 

received assistance from Education in preparing teachers to work with 

these student subgroups. Examples cited by these institutions of 

assistance provided to them by Education include grant funding, Web 

sites, conferences, and other published materials from Education. As 

shown in figure 12, an estimated 50 percent of institutions would greatly 

benefit from information or assistance, specifically in the areas of 

reforming curricula and identifying research-based instructional strategies 

for both student subgroups, as well as strengthening faculty knowledge of 

and experience specifically with English language learners. Finally, when 

asked about how the federal government could assist them in preparing 

teachers to work with these student subgroups, 142 of the 303 institutions 

that completed our survey responded to this open-ended question, and 

about half of the qualitative responses were related to additional funding 

needs. More than one-third of institutions that responded to this question 

expressed a need for technical assistance in the form of research, training, 

and other information. 

Page 30 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 12: Types of Information or Assistance Reported by Teacher Preparation Programs That Could Greatly Benefit Their 

Efforts to Prepare Teachers to Work with Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reforming state standards to

emphasize preparation for

instructing these students

Teaching cultural and socioeconomic

awarenessa

Developing effective student

teaching opportunities

Strengthening faculty knowledge

and experience 

Research-based instructional

strategies

Ways to reform curriculum

to better prepare teachers

Types of information or assistance

Percentage of teacher preparation programs

Students with disabilities

English language learners

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

52

52

48

53

43

51

41

42

35

30

31

a

We asked about information and assistance on teaching cultural and socioeconomic awareness, in 

general, and not in relation to any particular student subgroup. 

Page 31 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

The States We Visited 

Set Varying 

Requirements for the 

Preparation of 

Teachers to Instruct 

Students with 

Disabilities and 

English Language 

Learners, though All 

Offered Ongoing 

Training to Teachers 

and Experienced 

Challenges Meeting 

Training Needs 

The four states we visited varied in their coursework and field experience 

requirements for teacher preparation programs for instructing students 

with disabilities and English language learners. In addition to setting 

requirements for teacher preparation programs, each of the four states and 

eight school districts provided training opportunities to practicing 

teachers for instructing these student subgroups. Nevertheless, officials 

said they faced challenges providing training to prospective and practicing 

teachers. 

The States We Visited Set 

Varying Requirements for 

Preparing Teachers to 

Instruct Students with 

Disabilities and English 

Language Learners 

The standards set by the four states we visited for teacher preparation 

programs required varying coursework for prospective teachers on 

instructing students with disabilities and English language learners. 

California and Nebraska prescribed specific topics related to instructing 

students with disabilities that must be covered by teacher preparation 

programs in their states. Specifically, programs in these states must cover 

information on types of disabilities, meeting the needs of special education 

students in the general classroom, and knowledge of the individualized 

education program process. In Georgia and Texas, state standards require 

that all teacher preparation programs provide coursework on students 

with disabilities, and Georgia specifies that at least one course must be 

entirely focused on students with disabilities, although the structure of 

Coursework Requirements for 

Teacher Preparation Programs 

Page 32 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

this course can vary.29 California, which is home to nearly one-third of the 

nation’s English language learners, also required specific coursework for 

instructing English language learners, such as tools for English language 

development, teaching strategies, and legal requirements, as well as 

requirements for coursework on student diversity. The other three states 

we visited also required coursework on student diversity, although only 

Georgia defined language as a type of diversity. Nebraska’s and Texas’s 

requirements do not specifically mention language or English language 

learners in the diversity requirements.30 However, these three states offer 

teachers the opportunity to obtain additional targeted training to work 

with these students, often referred to as an English as a second language 

(ESL) endorsement.31

Among the four states we visited, only California required field 

experiences with both students with disabilities and English language 

learners. State educational officials from two of the other states explained 

that programs already provide or try to provide these placements, and so 

requiring it was unnecessary. For example, a senior official from 

Nebraska’s teacher certification office said that the state has not 

considered requiring field experience with students with disabilities since 

programs clearly make an effort to offer these experiences for prospective 

teachers, as these opportunities are more universally available. However, 

she said that they have not made field experiences with English language 

learners a requirement, because so few districts have large populations of 

these students. 

Field Experience Requirements 

for Teacher Preparation 

Programs 

During our site visits, we learned of a few examples that involved each of 

the four states conducting outreach to teacher preparation programs on 

State Outreach to Teacher 

Preparation Programs 

 

29Currently, Texas does not specify what topics on students with disabilities must be 

covered by teacher preparation programs. However, one senior official said that a new bill 

in the Texas House of Representatives (H.B. 3421) would set specific requirements for 

students with disabilities. 

30As of April 24, 2009, the Texas legislature was considering a bill that related to requiring 

teacher preparation programs to provide coursework on English language learners. 

31According to state officials, 16 percent of general classroom teachers in Texas had their 

endorsement (as of January 2009), 7 percent of general classroom teachers in Nebraska 

had their endorsement (as of August 2008), and 5 percent of general classroom teachers in 

Georgia had their endorsement (as of October 2008). Senior officials told us that California 

did offer an endorsement prior to requiring teacher preparation programs to provide 

coursework and fieldwork on instructing English language learners. As a result of these 

requirements, only veteran teachers and teachers trained outside the state who have not 

received instruction on English language learners must get their endorsement. 

Page 33 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

preparing prospective teachers to instruct students with disabilities and 

English language learners. For example, Georgia’s state educational 

agency convened both special and general education faculty members to 

discuss issues related to preparing prospective teachers to instruct 

students with disabilities. In Texas, as part of an annual meeting for 

institutions of higher education that received federal grant funding to 

improve teacher quality, the state agency for higher education recently 

presented effective instructional strategies to higher education faculty for 

math and science teachers to use with English language learners. 

Each State and School 

District We Visited 

Provided Assistance to 

Practicing Teachers for 

Instructing Both Student 

Subgroups 

In addition to support for prospective teachers, each of the four state 

educational agencies and the eight school districts we visited provided 

training to practicing general classroom teachers on instructing students 

with disabilities. At the state level, assistance provided to general 

classroom teachers focused on special education initiatives designed for 

use in the general classroom. For example, all four states told us about 

initiatives that focused on meeting the educational needs of students with 

disabilities in mainstream classrooms through Response to Intervention 

and co-teaching.32 Response to Intervention helps general classroom 

teachers, as part of a multidisciplinary team effort, to identify struggling 

learners and adapt to their learning styles, while co-teaching involves 

pairing a general classroom teacher with a special education teacher. 

California and Georgia both reported developing written guidance and 

training on co-teaching for use at the local level by teachers and 

administrators. Three of the state educational agencies we spoke with also 

offered online resources such as links to various Education-funded 

technical assistance centers and grant-related information, including 

State and District Assistance 

for Practicing Teachers with 

Students with Disabilities 

 

32States reported that some of these initiatives were funded through IDEA and ESEA Title 

II state set-aside funds. State set-aside funds are a small percentage of these large formula 

grant programs that are meant to be used for statewide initiatives, whereas most of the 

funds from these programs pass through states to local educational agencies. 

Page 34 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

federal formula funding under ESEA and IDEA that can be used to help 

general classroom teachers in instructing students with disabilities. 

Conversely, many of the district officials and school administrators we 

spoke with said they primarily focused on meeting the needs of their 

special education teachers, but support was typically available to general 

classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities through 

instructional coaches hired by the districts or special education personnel 

at the individual schools. Overall, general classroom teachers we spoke 

with said they relied on assistance from special education teachers within 

their schools, and several schools mentioned having co-teaching 

arrangements in place. Finally, three of the districts reported requiring 

training for general classroom teachers to instruct students with 

disabilities. For example, one district in Nebraska required all elementary 

teachers to take training on Response to Intervention. Nationwide, an 

Education-funded survey found that almost all school districts provided 

professional development for teachers with at least some emphasis on 

instructional strategies for students with individualized education 

programs under IDEA.33

Consistent with the assistance provided to help teachers instruct students 

with disabilities, all four of our selected states held statewide conferences 

or trainings offered by the state or through regional educational service 

centers to help general classroom teachers instruct English language 

learners. State officials reported that these trainings focused on 

implementing statewide English language development standards and 

assessments, as well as specific content areas and grade levels. For 

example, Texas has for nearly 20 years offered an annual statewide 

symposium on the instruction of English language learners at the 

secondary level. Another example is the California Subject Matter Project, 

a network of 15 regional professional development providers that offers 

training and technical assistance to school districts, individual schools, 

and teachers on instructional techniques for English language learners in 

specific content areas, such as math and science.34 National data obtained 

State and District Assistance 

for Practicing Teachers with 

English Language Learners 

 

33The survey data do not specify to what extent the professional development was provided 

to general classroom teachers. See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local 

Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III—Accountability Under 

NCLB: Interim Report (Washington, D.C., 2007). 

34State officials reported that this effort was funded through ESEA Title II state set-aside 

funding. 

Page 35 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

by Education found that for the 2005-2006 school year, 42 out of 49 states 

that responded, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, 

reported offering professional development to mainstream teachers who 

instruct English language learners.35 In addition, three of the four states we 

visited reported providing online resources that can be accessed by 

general classroom teachers, such as written guidance and online training 

on best practices for instructing this student subgroup. 

The eight districts we visited, most of which had higher concentrations of 

English language learners than the average district in their state, offered 

training opportunities and hired instructional coaches to provide 

individualized support to general classroom teachers with these students. 

School districts reported either providing training directly to teachers or 

helping them access training from other entities. For example, teachers 

from the Los Angeles Unified School District participated in an Educationfunded program through a local institution of higher education, which 

provided training on instructional strategies and required teachers to visit 

the homes of their students with limited English proficiency to gain a 

better understanding of the students’ cultural backgrounds. Nationwide, 

an Education-funded survey found that approximately 50 percent of 

districts provided professional development for teachers with at least 

some emphasis on instructional strategies for students with limited 

English proficiency.36

A number of the school districts we visited also encouraged teachers to 

earn an ESL endorsement by paying for the course or offering financial 

incentives after teachers received their endorsement. Four districts 

required general classroom teachers to receive training to better prepare 

them to instruct English language learners. For example, a Texas district 

requires teachers trained through alternative routes to receive a 

supplemental ESL certification. Several of the districts we visited used 

ESEA Title I, Title II, and Title III funding to hire English language learner 

instructional coaches and related personnel who could assist all teachers 

 

35See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local Implementation of the 

No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III—Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report. 

36The survey data do not specify to what extent the professional development was provided 

to general classroom teachers. See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local 

Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III—Accountability Under 

NCLB: Interim Report. 

Page 36 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

with instructional strategies, cultural issues, and other areas. Many of the 

teachers we spoke with reported relying on these personnel to assist them. 

At the individual school level, we also learned of schoolwide approaches 

to ensure that content is accessible to all students. For example, teachers 

in an elementary school we visited in Nebraska used visual tools to help 

students struggling with English by depicting illustrations of concepts that 

may be difficult to comprehend in writing. 

We noted some differences in the type of assistance provided for either 

subgroup depending on the size of the district.37 In general, the smaller 

districts we visited made training available to their teachers through 

regional educational service centers and state educational agencies, in 

addition to institutions of higher education. Larger school districts we 

visited typically offered their own districtwide training for teachers, while 

still using resources offered by their state educational agency or 

institutions of higher education. 

State Educational 

Agencies and School 

Districts Reported 

Challenges Ensuring That 

Practicing Teachers Are 

Prepared to Instruct Both 

Subgroups 

State officials and, at the local level, district officials and school 

administrators we spoke with said that general classroom teachers were 

generally unprepared to instruct students with disabilities and English 

language learners due to three key challenges: (1) limited exposure to 

these subgroups in teacher preparation programs, (2) funding and time to 

train practicing teachers, and (3) identifying instructional strategies for 

both student subgroups. A number of state and school district officials 

expressed a desire for a stronger focus in teacher preparation programs on 

preparing teachers to instruct both subgroups. For example, some state 

and school district officials both reported wanting more preparation for 

prospective teachers on differentiating instruction for diverse educational 

needs, co-teaching with special education personnel when working with 

students with disabilities, implementing Response to Intervention for 

monitoring students at risk for poor learning outcomes, and understanding 

and instructing different cultures. Several of the school district officials 

noted that new teachers often require additional training or assistance to 

work with these subgroups. 

 

37In each state, we visited two school districts. The districts, within each state, had large 

differences in the size of their student body, with one being classified by us as small and 

one being classified as large. 

Page 37 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Specifically, at the school district level, another challenge frequently cited 

by school district officials, administrators, and teachers in each state was 

identifying available funding and finding time for teachers to attend useful 

training sessions. District officials said that teachers can receive training 

during or after the regular workday, or during the summer, but all of these 

times have disadvantages. For example, releasing teachers for training 

during regular work hours incurs costs for substitute teachers, which 

states and districts said is challenging because of limited funding and 

competing priorities. Also, training in the summer and after hours is not 

always feasible due to contracts and personal schedules. One principal 

said that scheduling training during the summer is difficult because 

teachers are not required to attend. Teachers at one school said they 

struggle to participate in training outside the workday because it is 

difficult to fit into their schedules. Some school districts we spoke with 

were addressing these challenges by asking teachers who receive training 

to hold information-sharing sessions with other teachers in their school, 

and by arranging training opportunities at individual schools where 

teachers might be more likely to participate because of reduced time and 

travel burdens. 

Additional challenges, particularly in instructing English language learners 

were identified by a number of school district officials, administrators, and 

teachers, including the need for more information on instructional 

strategies, assessing student progress, and understanding cultural issues. 

At the individual schools we visited, general classroom teachers and 

administrators we spoke with identified the need for instructional 

strategies specifically to address challenges in instructing English 

language learners, such as adjusting instruction to meet the varying needs 

of students, assessing each student’s ability to understand content, and 

teaching students when their schooling is interrupted due to family 

mobility. A number of administrators and teachers discussed the 

challenges they face in understanding the numerous cultures represented 

by their students as well as communicating with families who have limited 

English proficiency. We also learned of some unique challenges for 

teachers at the secondary level who instruct English language learners. 

For example, officials in one of the states explained that instructing 

English language learners at the secondary level is challenging because the 

students must make tremendous gains in both complex content and 

language in a relatively short time to meet graduation requirements. Some 

of these students have arrived to the country recently or have limited 

formal education. Officials in one district noted that these students may 

become frustrated with learning a new language, and teachers struggle to 

understand their cultural differences. In addition, because students spend 

Page 38 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

time with different teachers for different content areas at the secondary 

level, teachers have difficulty coordinating their instruction for English 

language learner students. 

Six Education offices provide financial support and oversee about 100 

regional and national research and technical assistance providers that can 

work at the state and local levels to help general classroom teachers 

instruct students with disabilities and English language learners.38

However, no departmentwide mechanism exists within Education to 

ensure that all relevant offices work together to maximize the 

department’s contributions toward preparing teachers to effectively 

instruct these student subgroups. The grant programs and research and 

technical assistance providers overseen by these offices are shown in 

figure 13 and are discussed in more detail in the following sections.39

Multiple Education 

Offices Provide 

Assistance to Help 

Teachers Instruct 

Students with 

Disabilities and 

English Language 

Learners, but No 

Systematic 

Coordination Exists 

among These Offices 

 

38Three of the six offices oversee grant programs, as well as regional or national research 

and technical assistance providers. Two offices oversee regional or national research and 

technical assistance providers, but no grant programs. One office oversees a grant 

program, but no regional or national research and technical assistance providers. 

39In this report, we focus on grant programs that either require or allow grantees to use 

some of the funds to help general classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and 

English language learners. 

Page 39 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Figure 13: Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Regional and National Research and Technical Assistance Providers 

That Can Support Teacher Preparation to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 

Institute of 

Education 

Sciences

(IES)

Center for Research on the 

Educational Achievement 

and Teaching of English 

Language Learners

National Centers on 

Education and Special 

Education Research

What Works

Clearinghouse

Regional 

Educational 

Laboratories

(10)

Office of 

Elementary 

and 

Secondary 

Education 

(OESE)

ESEA Grant 

Programs

(Titles I and II,

Title III-formula)

National Content 

Centers (5) 3 jointly funded by OSERS

Regional 

Comprehensive 

Centers (16)

Regional Equity 

Assistance 

Centers (10)

Office of 

Innovation and 

Improvement 

(OII)

Teacher Quality 

Partnership Grants

Office of 

Planning, 

Evaluation and 

Policy 

Development

(OPEPD)

Doing What Works

Office of

Special 

Education and 

Rehabilitative 

Services

(OSERS)

IDEA Grant 

Programs

(Parts B and D)

Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination 

Network (48 centers)

Regional 

Resource 

Centers (6)

Grant programs

Regional research and technical assistance provider

National research and technical assistance provider

Office of 

English 

Language 

Acquisition 

(OELA)

ESEA Grant 

Programs

(Title III-discretionary)

National 

Clearinghouse for 

English Language 

Acquisition

U.S. Department of Education

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documents and interviews with officials, Art Explosion (images).

Page 40 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Ten Grant Programs 

Overseen by Four 

Education Offices Can 

Help Teachers Instruct 

These Student Subgroups 

Ten grant programs administered by four Education offices either require 

or allow grantees to use some of the funds to help general classroom 

teachers instruct students with disabilities and English language learners. 

Most of the funding focuses on training practicing teachers already in the 

classroom rather than prospective teachers, although none of the 

programs specifically tracks the use of funds to prepare general classroom 

teachers to instruct either of these subgroups. Four different Education 

offices—the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and 

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), and the Office of 

Innovation and Improvement (OII)—oversee these grants, each with a 

respective specific focus on elementary and secondary education 

generally, special education, English language acquisition, or innovative 

educational practices. See table 2 for a description of the 10 programs we 

identified within these four offices. 

Table 2: Ten Federal Programs Provide Funding That Can Be Used to Prepare General Classroom Teachers to Work with 

Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 

Program name and 

legislative 

authority Education office Subgroup targeted Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations (in 

millions) and type 

of funding 

Require at least some funds to be used to prepare or train teachers to instruct one of these subgroups 

English Language 

Acquisition State 

Grants, Title III, Part 

A, ESEA 

OESE English language 

learners 

To improve the education of English 

language learners by helping them learn 

English and meet state academic content 

and student academic achievement 

standards. Some of the funds must be used 

to support high-quality professional 

development for classroom teachers.a

 

$677.6 

Formulab

Teacher Quality 

Partnership Grants, 

Title II, HEA 

OII All students To improve student achievement and the 

quality of prospective and new teachers by 

improving the preparation of prospective 

teachers and enhancing professional 

development activities for new teachers. 

The program also holds teacher preparation 

programs at institutions of higher education 

accountable for preparing highly qualified 

teachers and supports recruiting highly 

qualified individuals, including minorities 

and individuals from other occupations, into 

the teaching force. 

50.0c 

Competitived

Page 41 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Program name and 

legislative 

authority Education office Subgroup targeted Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations (in 

millions) and type 

of funding 

Special Education 

Technical 

Assistance and 

Dissemination, Part 

D, IDEA 

OSERS Students with 

disabilities 

To promote academic achievement and 

improve results for children with disabilities 

by providing technical assistance, model 

demonstration projects, and dissemination 

of information, and implementation of 

activities that are supported by scientifically 

based research. 

48.5 

Competitive 

English Language 

Acquisition National 

Professional 

Development 

Project, Title III, Part 

A, ESEA 

OELA English language 

learners 

To support preparation for prospective 

teachers and professional development 

activities for education personnel working 

with English language learners. 

41.8

Competitive 

Allow funds to be used to prepare or train teachers to instruct one of these subgroups 

Improving Basic 

Programs Operated 

by Local Educational 

Agencies, Title I, 

Part A, ESEA 

OESE All students To provide assistance to local educational 

agencies and schools with high numbers or 

high percentages of poor children to help 

ensure that all children meet challenging 

state academic standards. 

14,492.4e 

Formula 

Special EducationGrants to States, 

Part B, IDEA 

OSERS Students with 

disabilities 

To assist states, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, freely associated states, and 

outlying areas in meeting the costs of 

providing special education and related 

services to children with disabilities. 

11,505.2f 

Formula 

Improving Teacher 

Quality State Grants, 

Title II, Part A, ESEA 

OESE All students To increase academic achievement by 

improving teacher and principal quality. 

2,947.7 

Formulag

Special EducationPersonnel 

Development to 

Improve Services 

and Results for 

Children with 

Disabilities, Part D, 

IDEA 

OSERS Students with 

disabilities 

To help address state-identified needs for 

highly qualified personnel in special 

education, related services, early 

intervention, and regular education to work 

with children with disabilities, and to ensure 

that those personnel have the skills and 

knowledge needed to serve these children. 

90.7 

Competitive 

Special EducationState Personnel 

Development Grants 

Program, Part D, 

IDEA 

OSERS Students with 

disabilities 

To assist state educational agencies in 

reforming and improving their systems for 

personnel preparation and professional 

development in early intervention, 

educational, and transitional services in 

order to improve results for children with 

disabilities. 

48.0 

Competitive 

Page 42 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Program name and 

legislative 

authority Education office Subgroup targeted Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations (in 

millions) and type 

of funding 

Native American and 

Alaska Native 

Children in School 

Program, Title III, 

Part A, ESEA 

OELA English language 

learners 

To develop high levels of academic 

attainment in English, and to promote 

parental and community participation in 

language instruction educational programs. 

Some of the funds must be used to support 

high-quality professional development for 

classroom teachers. 

5.0 

Competitive 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation. Budget information from fiscal year 2009 budget appropriations and Education’s 

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Summary and Background Information. 

a

This program includes teachers in classroom settings that are not the settings of language 

instructional education programs in its definition of classroom teachers. 

b

The eligible recipients for the formula grant programs in this table are state educational agencies, 

which then pass much of the funding through to local educational agencies. 

c

The Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program received an additional $100 million for fiscal year 

2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5), 

signed into law on February 17, 2009. Funds from the Recovery Act are not reflected in this table. 

d

Eligible recipients for many of the competitive grant programs in the table include institutions of 

higher education, state educational agencies, local educational agencies, or nonprofit organizations, 

sometimes in consortia or partnerships with each other. 

e

The Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies program received an 

additional $10 billion through the Recovery Act for fiscal year 2009. 

f

The Special Education–Grants to States program received an additional $11.3 billion through the 

Recovery Act for fiscal year 2009. 

g

Of the overall funding for Title II, Part A, 2.5 percent—roughly $74 million—went to the state agency 

for higher education in each state to run a competitive statewide partnership grants program. 

While together these programs provided nearly $30 billion, excluding 

funds from the Recovery Act, none of the programs specifically tracked 

the extent to which grantees use these funds to prepare general classroom 

teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English language 

learners, and several of the programs’ proposed designs suggested the 

funding used for this purpose was a relatively small portion of the overall 

funding available. For example, the two largest programs under the 

ESEA—the Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational 

Agencies (Title I, Part A) and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 

program (Title II, Part A)—are large, multibillion dollar formula grant 

programs designed to provide flexibility to states and school districts to 

address their needs in a variety of areas and benefit a wide range of 

students. While these two programs had fiscal year 2004 appropriations of 

$12.3 billion for Title I, Part A and $2.9 billion for Title II, Part A, 

Education reported that the districts spent 8 percent and 18 percent of 

these funds, respectively, for professional development in 2004-2005. 

Officials emphasized that professional development funds are used to train 

practicing teachers in a wide range of topic areas, which may include 

Page 43 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

helping general classroom teachers instruct these student subgroups. 

Based on our interviews with state and school district officials in the four 

states we visited, we learned that funds from these programs allowed 

school districts to assist teachers working with students with disabilities 

and English language learners. Examples included hiring educational 

coaches to work with general classroom teachers, paying for substitute 

teachers to allow teachers to attend training sessions, and providing 

support for statewide conferences. 

Of the 10 grant programs we identified, 3 specifically targeted English 

language learners; 4 targeted students with disabilities; and the remaining 

3 benefited all students, including those in these two student subgroups. 

The programs targeting English language learners aimed to prepare any 

teacher working with this subgroup. State educational and school district 

officials we met with who received funding from the largest of the three 

programs that targeted English language learners—the English Language 

Acquisition State Grants program—provided examples of how they used 

these funds to support general classroom teachers. This support included 

stipends for teachers to attend relevant workshops, hiring bilingual and 

cultural liaisons to work individually with teachers, and districtwide 

training sessions. In support of instruction for students with disabilities, 

OSERS’s Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

program specifies funds to be used to provide training for both general 

education and special education teachers, among other required uses. The 

grantees disseminate research and provide technical assistance on a wide 

range of special education topics. Several of the grantees we spoke with 

reported providing information both online and through in-person 

workshops that can benefit general classroom teachers. Similarly, the 

Special Education-State Personnel Development Grant Program requires 

90 percent of funds to be spent on personnel preparation and professional 

development related to instructing students with disabilities; while general 

classroom teachers can benefit from the activities, Education officials 

emphasized the main purpose of the program is to prepare prospective 

and practicing special education teachers. California reported using this 

funding to support a program that helps teachers address behavioral 

issues for the general education curricula, and Georgia provided support 

to middle and secondary level math teachers to improve instruction to 

students with disabilities. 

While most of the overall funding supports practicing teachers already in 

the classroom, rather than preparing prospective teachers at the teacher 

preparation level, three of the grant programs—which accounted for 

approximately $183 million—either require or allow funding to prepare 

Page 44 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

prospective teachers to instruct these subgroups. (See table 3 for 

information on which programs required or allowed funding to prepare 

prospective teachers to instruct these subgroups.) For example, the HEA 

Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, as amended by HEOA, 

requires grantees to prepare prospective teachers to meet the specific 

learning needs of all students, including students with disabilities and 

English language learners. Similarly, in its fiscal year 2007 request for 

proposals, the English Language Acquisition National Professional 

Development Project invited proposals from teacher education programs 

on ways to improve their programs to better prepare prospective teachers 

to provide instruction to English language learners, among other goals. 

According to a senior program official, about half of the applicants 

responded to this priority. 

Table 3: Funding Required or Allowed to Prepare or Train Prospective or Practicing Teachers 

Students with disabilities English language learners 

Program name 

Funding for 

prospective 

teachers 

Funding for 

practicing 

teachers 

Funding for 

prospective 

teachers 

Funding for 

practicing 

teachers 

ESEA 

Improving Basic Programs Operated by 

Local Educational Agencies 

— Allowed — Allowed 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants — Allowed — Allowed 

English Language Acquisition State Grants — — — Required 

English Language Acquisition National 

Professional Development Project 

— — Allowed Required 

Native American and Alaska Native 

Children in School Program 

— — — Allowed 

HEA 

Teacher Quality Partnership Grants Required — Required — 

IDEA 

Special Education-Grants to States — Allowed — — 

Special Education-Personnel Development 

to Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities 

Allowed Allowed — — 

Special Education-National ActivitiesTechnical Assistance and Dissemination — Required — — 

Special Education-State Personnel 

Development Grant Program 

— Allowed — — 

Source: GAO analysis of Education documentation. 

Page 45 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Education Oversees 

Numerous Regional and 

National Providers That 

Offer Assistance to 

Prospective and Practicing 

Teachers for Instructing 

Students with Disabilities 

and English Language 

Learners 

In addition to grants for teacher preparation and training, a number of 

Education offices support regional and national research institutions and 

technical assistance providers offering help to policymakers and 

educators at the state and local levels. Specifically, three different program 

offices support four types of regional technical assistance providers that 

can help general classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and 

English language learners, among other activities (see app. II for more 

information on the regional research and technical assistance centers we 

interviewed). 

Regional Research and Technical Assistance Providers 

• Regional comprehensive centers: Supported by OESE to work with 

state educational agencies to help increase state capacity to assist 

regional education agencies, school districts, and individual schools in 

meeting their student achievement goals. While the regional 

comprehensive centers are designed to work with state educational 

agencies, they can assist general classroom teachers to instruct 

students with disabilities or English language learners if requested by 

states. For example, one regional comprehensive center we spoke with 

has developed a training course for general classroom teachers on 

instructing English language learners, which trains small teams 

involving teachers and their principal, and the information is expected 

to be shared with colleagues in the home schools. We also spoke with 

some of the teachers who attended the training, who reported that it 

was the first time the school obtained a practical and useful manual on 

how to instruct English language learners. An administrator who was 

involved in the program also commented that his involvement helped 

teachers effectively share the strategies they learned with their 

colleagues. 

• Regional equity assistance centers: Supported by OESE to work with 

school districts and other responsible government entities to ensure 

that their policies and procedures provide equitable opportunities for 

all students, regardless of race or national origin. Most of the centers 

we interviewed provided training on instructional strategies for 

English language learners. For example, one equity assistance center 

conducted a session for one state’s local regional educational service 

centers on classroom strategies for English language learners that the 

service center could then pass on to school districts in its region. 

• Regional resource centers: Supported by OSERS to assist state and 

local educational agencies in the development and implementation of 

performance plans and measurement systems based on indicators 

established by the office. While this may include helping states prepare 

Page 46 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

general classroom teachers for instructing students with disabilities, it 

is not a stated priority for these centers. In general, the regional 

resource centers we interviewed reported that their main focus is on 

assisting state educational agencies to develop and implement 

performance plans for serving students with disabilities, and that any 

direct work with general classroom teachers is tangential. However, 

one regional resource center we spoke with reported that the 

increased focus on Response to Intervention has focused its work 

more on general classroom teachers. 

• Regional educational laboratories: Supported by the Institute of 

Education Sciences (IES) to provide policymakers, administrators, and 

teachers with expert advice, training, and technical assistance on how 

to interpret the latest findings from scientifically valid research 

pertaining to the requirements of ESEA. In instances in which 

scientific evidence is not available, the regional educational 

laboratories conduct applied research and development projects. For 

example, one regional educational laboratory is performing a study on 

whether using materials specifically written for English language 

learners increases student achievement. The laboratories’ work is 

based on requests from states and school districts. None of the 

laboratories we spoke with focused on providing training or technical 

assistance directly to general classroom teachers. The research 

conducted by these centers is made publicly available through 

Education and individual laboratory Web sites. 

In addition, several Education offices oversee numerous national research 

and technical assistance providers that can assist teacher preparation 

programs, state educational agencies, and those working at the school 

district level with research, policy, and effective instructional practices for 

teaching students with disabilities and English language learners. These 

centers focus on a wide range of education issues and serve different 

target audiences (see app. III for more information on the national 

research and technical assistance centers we interviewed). 

National Research and Technical Assistance Providers 

• OESE supports five national content centers with expertise on specific 

issues facing educators. These centers primarily support the regional 

comprehensive centers in their efforts to work with states. Three of 

the centers—the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 

the Center on Instruction, and the National High School Center—are 

jointly funded with OSERS and thus focus some of their activities on 

students with disabilities. 

Page 47 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

• OSERS supports a network of more than 40 national technical 

assistance centers, each with a focus on some aspect of special 

education. For example, two of the centers—the National Center on 

Response to Intervention and the Center on Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports—focus, respectively, on strategies to 

identify struggling learners and implement appropriate interventions in 

the general classroom setting and strategies to develop schoolwide 

disciplinary practices. In addition, the IRIS Center for Training 

Enhancements provides case studies and interactive online training 

modules that include video scenarios to allow users to see teachers 

engaging in various strategies to meet the needs of students with 

disabilities. These materials are publicly available online and are 

accessed by entities such as institutions of higher education, state 

educational agencies, and school districts. 

• OELA oversees the National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition, which is tasked with assisting states to implement Title III 

of ESEA and increasing their capacity to improve English language 

learner achievement. Through its Web site, the National Clearinghouse 

for English Language Acquisition provides resources for teachers on 

many aspects of the English language learner population and links to 

lesson plans and classroom techniques suitable for both specialists and 

general classroom teachers. The clearinghouse also helps state 

educational agencies with collecting and reporting data in compliance 

with ESEA Title III, and works with states to implement standards and 

assessments for these students. In addition, OELA supports the 

Limited English Proficiency Partnership, which provides a wide array 

of services and products to assist teachers in instructing English 

language learners. 

• IES administers a national resource for administrators and educators, 

the What Works Clearinghouse, which assesses research on the 

effectiveness of programs, products, practices, and policies so that 

educators are able to make informed decisions. The What Works 

Clearinghouse also produces practice guides for educators that 

address instructional challenges with research-based 

recommendations for schools and classrooms, which has included a 

practice guide focused on strategies for instructing English language 

learners and two recently issued guides on Response to Intervention. 

IES also administers the Education Resources Information Center, an 

online database of millions of published materials that Education has 

provided for the last 35 years, which officials said can be a valuable 

resource, especially for teacher preparation programs. In addition, IES 

oversees the National Research and Development Centers program, 

which includes the Center for Research on the Educational 

Page 48 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners, a national 

center primarily focused on research. Finally, IES funds and 

disseminates research through its National Center for Education 

Research and the National Center for Special Education Research, 

which can include research on preparing prospective and practicing 

teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English language 

learners. 

• The Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD) 

manages Doing What Works, a Web site that translates What Works 

Clearinghouse practice guides into practical plans for teachers and 

local school districts. The Web site includes a tutorial to help teachers 

instruct English language learners and is currently in the process of 

developing modules on Response to Intervention for both math and 

reading. 

Most of the regional and national providers of research and technical 

assistance we interviewed focus on support to benefit practicing teachers 

already in the classroom, rather than prospective teachers enrolled in 

teacher preparation programs. Only one of the national providers we 

spoke with specifically focuses on teacher preparation programs, and it 

had recently expanded its focus to practicing teachers under its latest 

contract. However, a few providers reported that teacher preparation 

programs likely use their materials, even if the provider’s interaction with 

these programs was not the main focus of their work. For example, while 

not the main focus of the center, one research center that focuses on the 

instruction of English language learners reported that its research has 

tangentially influenced teacher preparation programs through its 

partnerships with faculty at institutions of higher education. 

Despite these research and technical assistance providers’ outreach 

activities, most teachers and administrators in the eight school districts we 

visited said they were unaware of many of the resources available. Some 

providers reported conducting outreach primarily to states, relying on 

state educational agencies to disseminate resources or information about 

their services to the local level. Several providers also reported some 

efforts to disseminate information through conference presentations, email lists, and regular newsletters directly to all interested parties. 

However, we heard from a number of teachers and administrators that 

they had limited awareness of these Education-funded resources. Some 

said they did not have the time to review all of the available resources to 

find relevant materials. Education officials acknowledged the challenges 

faced in disseminating information broadly and reported recent 

improvements. For example, Doing What Works, which is focused on 

Page 49 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

providing practical information to teachers, reported plans to increase its 

outreach efforts to classroom teachers as its available resources increase, 

and OSERS has funded a center to assist its entire provider network with 

disseminating information. 

A Departmentwide 

Mechanism for 

Coordinating the Relevant 

Activities of These 

Multiple Offices within 

Education Could Ensure 

the Most Efficient Use of 

Resources 

Six offices within Education, each with its own subject matter focus and 

priorities, oversee the multiple grant programs and regional and national 

technical assistance providers that can support general classroom teachers’ 

efforts to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners. 

Officials from each of the six Education offices that administer grant 

programs and other assistance related to preparing teachers for 

instructing students with disabilities and English language learners 

reported that some offices coordinate on individual efforts. For example, 

OSERS and OESE jointly fund and oversee the National Comprehensive 

Center for Teacher Quality, the National Center on Response to 

Intervention, and the Center on Instruction. OPEPD has also made efforts 

to coordinate with other Education offices, particularly with IES. 

Specifically, OPEPD has modified the contract for its Doing What Works 

initiative—from an initiative that performs its own research to produce 

teacher training modules to one that develops and disseminates modules 

demonstrating teaching strategies based on empirical research performed 

by IES. This effort has helped to make IES’s research available on a 

practical level to practicing general classroom teachers who instruct 

students with disabilities and English language learners; however, 

Education officials noted that the publicly available information may also 

be used by prospective teachers and their instructors within teacher 

preparation programs. 

Coordination among and within select Education offices also extends to 

the regional and national technical assistance providers they oversee. For 

example, OSERS and OESE collaborate on an annual conference that 

convenes the regional and national technical assistance providers they 

fund to discuss best practices and opportunities for increased 

coordination with respect to specific issues related to students with 

disabilities. As a result of the conference, the regional equity assistance 

centers, regional comprehensive centers, and regional resource centers 

from the Northeast and relevant national technical assistance providers 

have planned and implemented collaborative initiatives, such as a joint 

survey of regional needs in implementing Response to Intervention. 

Education officials told us that a similar initiative has also been launched 

in the North Central region. Officials from these technical assistance 

Page 50 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

providers reported that this collaboration has led to a more efficient use of 

resources, a better understanding of all technical assistance programs 

existing in the region, and an opportunity to present a unified message to 

the state educational agencies with whom they work. In addition, OSERS 

established the Technical Assistance Coordination Center in fiscal year 

2008 to promote better coordination among its 48 regional and national 

technical assistance providers and better information dissemination. 

Finally, the National Dissemination Center, also funded by OSERS, is 

developing a Web site that will allow the public to search the Web sites of 

all technical assistance providers within OSERS’s Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination Network, as well as OESE’s comprehensive centers and 

regional equity assistance centers. 

Education has also begun new coordination efforts related to the Recovery Act 

that involve multiple offices, although these efforts do not currently focus on 

assistance to prepare general classroom teachers to instruct students with 

disabilities and English language learners. Given that the Recovery Act provides 

funds to improve teacher effectiveness, Education officials said that this 

presents an opportunity to coordinate the department’s resources to improve 

teacher quality. Specifically, Education officials said that they recently initiated 

coordination efforts to address the Recovery Act requirements related to 

teachers by forming a team made up of representatives from several program 

offices and led by the Secretary’s advisors. 

Despite some coordination efforts among select offices and prior efforts to 

coordinate, Education currently lacks a departmentwide mechanism to 

ensure that activities administered through these various offices 

coordinate their contributions generally, and their activities to prepare 

general classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and 

English language learners, specifically. Many officials within the program 

offices we spoke with highlighted a prior effort to coordinate among 

offices involved in teacher quality that convened regular meetings of all 

relevant program offices. Officials reported that these meetings apprised 

them of what other Education offices were doing with regard to 

professional development for teachers. One research office reported they 

shared the information they gathered from the field immediately, rather 

than waiting for a report to be issued, which helped offices tailor their 

programs to be current, rather than lagging behind their needs. Officials 

we spoke with said this working group was disbanded due to changing 

priorities within Education. 

Most of the officials we spoke with in the offices that play a role in 

supporting general classroom teachers to instruct students with 

Page 51 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

disabilities and English language learners noted the potential value of a 

departmentwide mechanism for regular coordination among offices to 

increase their effectiveness. Officials said systematic coordination among 

Education offices related to teacher preparation for these student 

subgroups could help at every phase of the grant cycle, allowing offices to 

get relevant offices’ input into requests for proposals or guidance it 

planned to issue. Another official stated that a departmentwide 

mechanism would help Education offices share information, so that 

offices that may have less experience working with these student 

subgroups can better understand and address their needs. For example, 

with the 2008 reauthorization of HEA, OII’s Teacher Quality Partnership 

Grant program now requires a focus on preparing general classroom 

teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English language 

learners, for which OSERS’s and OELA’s expertise would be valuable. 

Officials noted that coordinating with other offices could enable program 

offices to benefit from the information obtained by Education’s relevant 

research institutions, such as those overseen by IES. One official stated 

that a lack of coordination among relevant offices can lead to a loss in 

capacity because information is not as readily shared, particularly for 

cross-cutting issues such as preparing general classroom teachers for 

students with disabilities and English language learners. Several officials 

also emphasized the need for support from top management officials for 

departmentwide coordination among offices because, without this 

support, coordination is likely to become less of a priority for the offices. 

Our findings are similar to those of a related July 2009 report on 

Education’s teacher quality initiatives.40 For example, we said in that 

report that teacher quality activities within Education are overseen by nine 

different program offices with little sustained coordination and no strategy 

for working systematically across program lines. The report recommended 

that the Secretary of Education establish and implement a strategy for 

sustained coordination among existing departmental offices and programs 

to aid information and resource sharing, and strengthen linkages among its 

efforts to help improve teacher quality. In its response to a draft of that 

report, Education said that it would consider forming a cross-program 

group focused on teacher quality, but also pointed out that such efforts do 

not always prove useful, indicating that it favors short-term, issue-specific 

 

40See GAO, Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education Programs Could 

Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality, GAO-09-593 (Washington, D.C.: July 6, 

2009). 

Page 52 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

coordination. In our response to Education in that report, while 

acknowledging that the department faces some challenges to 

coordination, we emphasized that we continue to believe that Education 

needs to develop a strategy for sustained coordination to ensure that 

different offices routinely become involved in sharing information and 

resources, as well as facilitating linkages among teacher quality 

improvement efforts. 

Our past work and other federal guidance has highlighted the importance of 

coordination to deliver results more efficiently in light of limited resources 

and multiple demands. As we have previously reported, uncoordinated 

program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program 

customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the program.41 We have also 

reported that leadership and organizational culture are necessary elements 

for a collaborative working relationship, emphasizing that committed 

leadership from all levels of the organization is needed to overcome barriers 

to coordination. In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act 

offers a structured means, through the development of strategic plans and 

performance reports, for identifying multiple programs—within and outside 

the agency—that contribute to the same or similar goals and for describing 

coordination efforts to ensure that goals are consistent and program efforts 

are mutually reinforcing.42

Education’s performance plan outlines its goals for providing all children in 

this country, including students with disabilities and English language 

learners, with qualified teachers and the education they need to meet 

challenging academic standards. At the same time that increased attention is 

being paid to the academic achievement of students in these subgroups, many 

of them spend a large proportion of their day in general classrooms, rather 

than in special, separate classes. This places increased emphasis on 

effectively preparing general classroom teachers who may instruct these 

students to help them meet achievement goals. While federal grants, research, 

and technical assistance that can be used to support teachers in achieving 

these goals are available, the management and oversight of this assistance is 

spread among numerous Education offices. While some of these offices have 

Conclusions 

 

41See GAO, Managing for Results: Building on Agencies’ Strategic Plans to Improve 

Federal Management, GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-29 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 1997). 

42See GAO, Results Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

Page 53 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

recently increased coordination in some areas, coordination among all 

relevant offices to share information and expertise related to students with 

disabilities and English language learners in the general classroom does not 

occur on a regular basis. As a result, Education offices may not fully benefit 

from the expertise and experiences available departmentwide to assist 

teachers in instructing these students, which could potentially limit program 

effectiveness and prevent the most efficient use of resources. 

Greater coordination among Education offices is especially relevant in 

light of Congress’s new focus, through HEOA, on preparing prospective 

teachers for instructing these subgroups, and the Recovery Act, which 

substantially increased funding for teacher preparation programs and 

for states and school districts to assist prospective and already 

practicing teachers. Attention to coordination among relevant offices 

specifically focused on assisting general classroom teachers in 

instructing students with disabilities and English language learners is 

warranted and needs to come from Education’s leadership to ensure 

support for such an effort and help it endure. More systematic 

coordination focused on the ultimate goal of making progress in 

academic achievement for students with disabilities and English 

language learners in the general classroom would complement 

increased emphasis on coordination among Education offices involved 

in teacher quality efforts, as we recommended in our related July 2009 

report. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education develop and implement a 

departmentwide mechanism to ensure more systematic coordination 

among Education’s offices that oversee grant programs, research, and 

technical assistance that can help prospective and practicing teachers to 

instruct students with disabilities and English language learners in the 

general classroom. 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 

Education’s comments are reproduced in appendix IV. In its comments, 

Education agreed that coordination is beneficial and noted that it will 

explore the benefits of creating a mechanism to ensure more systematic 

coordination. More specifically, Education will review the advisability of 

forming a cross-program committee, but it would first want to ensure that 

such a group would lead to improvements in the way Education and its 

grantees implement programs that promote teacher quality. It added that, 

in the department’s experience, creating an intradepartmental committee 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 54 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

for the sole purpose of coordinating agency activities or sharing 

information across offices is not always useful, indicating a preference for 

bringing different offices together to work on discrete issues when such 

action is needed. Education commented that it had recently increased 

coordination efforts among multiple program offices to address new 

Recovery Act requirements and, as the work of that team evolves, it will 

likely make more sense to have it look at issues related to the teaching of 

students with disabilities and English language learners than to establish a 

separate coordination body focused narrowly on that area. We revised our 

report to reflect Education’s new Recovery Act coordination efforts. 

Education also provided technical comments that we incorporated into 

the report as appropriate. 

As we indicated in our conclusions, we believe that more systematic 

departmentwide coordination is warranted at this time for several reasons, 

including the new focus through HEOA on preparing prospective teachers for 

these students and new Recovery Act funding available to states and school 

districts. However, we do not specify the particular method by which 

Education should address this issue. Education should use its knowledge of 

past efforts and existing barriers to explore various mechanisms for sharing 

expertise and information among relevant offices. For example, these could 

include building upon existing efforts, as Education noted regarding its 

Recovery Act coordination efforts, or exploring new ways to bring people 

together through electronic means or in communities of practice that 

facilitate sharing of expertise and information. In addition, Education could 

consider identifying any specific legislative requirements and other potential 

impediments to coordination and develop a strategy for addressing them. A 

key component of any coordination mechanism, as we also noted in our 

conclusions, is that the coordination effort should come from Education’s 

leadership to ensure support and help it endure. 

Page 55 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, 

we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. 

At that time we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 

relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, 

this report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations 

and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Staff who 

made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

Cornelia M. Ashby 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Page 56 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 57 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Our review focused on (1) the extent to which teacher preparation 

programs require preparation for general classroom teachers to instruct 

students with disabilities and English language learners and the challenges 

these programs face; (2) the role selected states play in preparing general 

classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English 

language learners and their challenges; and (3) funding and other 

assistance the U.S. Department of Education (Education) provides to 

states and teacher preparation programs to help prepare general 

classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups. For the purposes 

of this engagement, we defined general classroom teacher as a 

nonspecialist teacher of the general education curriculum in a mainstream 

classroom; we did not include special education teachers or English as a 

second language teachers within the scope of our research. 

We designed and implemented a Web-based survey to gather information 

on the extent to which teacher preparation programs administered by 

institutions of higher education require preparation for general classroom 

teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English language 

learners. The population from which we drew our sample consisted of the 

institutions of higher education in the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. We identified these institutions from a list of teacher 

preparation programs that report annually to their state educational 

agencies, as required by the Higher Education Act (HEA). We obtained the 

list from Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) and 

supplemented the information with data obtained from state officials. We 

assessed the reliability of these data and found them to be sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. Our survey was directed to deans or chairs of 

colleges or departments of education. 

Survey of Teacher 

Preparation Programs 

at Institutions of 

Higher Education 

Process for Developing the 

Survey Instrument 

To develop survey questions, we reviewed existing studies and other 

resources on preservice preparation for general classroom teachers to 

instruct students with disabilities and English language learners. We also 

conducted interviews with faculty members from institutions of higher 

education with expertise on these issues and officials from national 

membership and accreditation entities for teacher preparation programs 

to develop an understanding of the curriculum structure for prospective 

elementary and secondary teachers enrolled in traditional programs and 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

alternative routes to certification offered by these institutions.1 Finally, we 

pretested various drafts of our questionnaire with deans and chairs of 

colleges and departments of education at eight institutions of higher 

education to help ensure that the questions were clear, the terms used 

were precise, the questions were unbiased, and that the questionnaire 

could be completed in a reasonable amount of time. We modified the 

questionnaire to incorporate findings from each pretest. 

Our survey questionnaire obtained information on required courses and 

field experiences, challenges facing programs in preparing general 

classroom teachers for these student subgroups, program improvements, 

and additional assistance received and needed in these areas. For the 

sections of our questionnaire pertaining to curricula requirements, we 

primarily focused on traditional programs offered by institutions of higher 

education that prepare elementary and secondary general classroom 

teachers. To a lesser extent, we also included questions on alternative 

routes to certification, which may also be offered by these institutions. All 

the institutions of higher education within our sample offered a traditional 

teacher preparation program for either prospective elementary or 

secondary teachers or both. In addition to traditional teacher preparation 

programs, these institutions may also administer alternative routes to 

certification, and table 4 provides estimates of the number of programs by 

type from institutions responding to our nationwide survey. Finally, given 

the variation in the types and structure of various teacher preparation 

programs, we only collected data on an institution’s largest teacher 

preparation program for prospective elementary and secondary teachers, 

as well as their largest alternative route to certification program. We asked 

institutions to identify their largest programs as those with the highest 

number of program completers in the 2007-2008 academic year.2

 

1

Our survey only included alternative routes to certification administered by institutions of 

higher education. We did not include alternative routes to certification offered by other 

entities, such as state educational agencies, school districts, regional educational service 

centers, and other organizations. 

2

A program completer is an individual who has completed all the requirements of a stateapproved teacher preparation program and is documented as having fulfilled these 

requirements. 

Page 58 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 4: Characteristics of Teacher Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher 

Education That Responded to GAO’s Survey 

Traditional programs 

Elementary Secondary 

Alternative

routes 

Number of institutions 296 284 145

Percentage of total survey 

respondents (n = 303) 

98.0% 95.9% 50.5%

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

Data Source for Survey of 

Institutions of Higher 

Education 

To survey institutions of higher education that administer teacher 

preparation programs, we selected a probability sample of these 

institutions. The universe of institutions from which we drew our sample 

was a 2007 list of 1,344 traditional teacher preparation programs obtained 

from Education’s OPE, which included all institutions of higher education 

that administer traditional teacher preparation programs reporting 

annually to their respective state, as required by Title II of HEA. Because 

OPE’s list did not include programs from Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska, 

we interviewed state officials from these states and identified an 

additional 57 traditional programs for our sampling frame.3

 To finalize our 

sampling frame from this list of data from OPE and state officials, we 

omitted programs that were outside the scope of our research.4

 As a 

result, we had a sampling frame comprised of 1,272 institutions of h

education that offer traditional teacher preparation programs. From this 

list, which we sorted alphabetically by state, we drew a systematic random 

sample of 376 institutions to participate in our survey, and we eliminated 

two institutions from the sample because they did not meet the definition 

of a traditional teacher preparation program offered by an institution of 

higher education. 

igher 

 

3

OPE’s list does not include state-approved programs from Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska 

because these states did not report the number of program completers annually to OPE in 

2007. In addition, these states did not require teacher candidates to take assessments to 

earn certification and thus did not calculate pass rates. 

4

We omitted programs with less than 10 program completers because OPE does not 

consistently report pass rates for these programs. In addition, we did not include programs 

located in Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico. 

Page 59 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Administration Method for 

Survey of Institutions of 

Higher Education 

We conducted the survey using a Web-based, self-administered 

questionnaire. In the questionnaire, we asked the deans or chairs of 

colleges or departments of education to be the lead survey respondent 

and, if necessary, to confer with other faculty members within their 

institution to answer questions requiring more detailed knowledge. We 

collected contact information for these institutions by cross-referencing 

the list of institutions with a list obtained from a national accreditation 

entity for teacher preparation programs and through searches of these 

institutions’ Web sites. Through e-mails and phone contacts, we verified 

the contact information provided from these resources. We sent e-mail 

notifications to these officials beginning on September 30, 2008. To 

encourage them to respond, we sent four follow-up e-mails over a period 

of about 8 weeks. During this time, staff and contractors made phone calls 

to encourage those who did not respond to complete our questionnaire. In 

all, 303 institutions of higher education completed the survey for a 

response rate of 81 percent. We performed a nonresponse analysis and 

found no evidence of a significant potential for nonresponse bias in our 

survey results. Thus, our response rate for this survey allowed us to 

generalize our survey results to the population of teacher preparation 

programs administrated by institutions of higher education. 

Possible Errors Inherent in 

Probability Samples 

Survey results based on probability samples are subject to sampling error. 

The sample we drew for our survey is only one of a large number of 

samples we might have drawn. Because different samples could have 

provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision 

of our particular sample results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is 

the interval that would contain the actual population values for 95 percent 

of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent 

confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include 

the true values in the study population. Unless otherwise noted, the 

margin of error associated with the confidence intervals of our survey 

estimates is no more than plus or minus 6 percentage points at the 95 

percent level of confidence. 

Efforts to Minimize 

Nonsampling Errors 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce 

other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 

example, difficulties in the way a particular question is interpreted, in the 

sources of information that are available to respondents, or in the way the 

data are entered into the database or were analyzed can introduce 

unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the 

development of this questionnaire, in the data collection, and in the data 

Page 60 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

analysis to minimize such errors. Specifically, a survey specialist designed 

the questionnaire in collaboration with staff who have subject matter 

expertise. Then, as previously mentioned, the draft questionnaire was 

pretested with eight institutions of higher education to ensure that 

questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. The 

questionnaire was also reviewed by an additional survey specialist and five 

external experts in the fields of teacher preparation, English language 

acquisition, and special education. Data analysis was conducted by a data 

analyst working directly with staff who have subject matter expertise. 

When the data were analyzed, a second independent data analyst checked 

all computer programs for accuracy. Since this was a Web-based survey, 

respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic 

questionnaires. This eliminated the need to have the data keyed into 

databases, thus removing an additional source of error. 

To understand the role of selected states in preparing both prospective 

and practicing teachers to work with students with disabilities and English 

language learners, we interviewed state and local officials in four states—

California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas. We selected states that met a 

range of conditions, primarily focusing on states either with a high 

concentration of the population ages 5 to 21 years who speak English “less 

than very well” or that experienced growth in this population ages 5 to 17 

years from 1990 and 2000, as well as geographic diversity. In addition, we 

took into consideration states with higher-than-average percentages of 

students with disabilities served under IDEA, Part B who spent more than 

80 percent of their day in a general education classroom. During our site 

visits, we interviewed officials at state educational agencies, state agencies 

for higher education, and school districts, as well as principals and 

teachers, in these four states to understand the extent to which federal 

funding was used to support teacher preparation for instructing these 

student subgroups, the challenges they faced in ensuring that teachers are 

prepared to work with these students, and assistance Education provided 

to support teachers in instructing these students in mainstream 

classrooms. 

Site Visits to Selected 

States and School 

Districts 

Within our four selected states, we identified two school districts, or local 

educational agencies, for site visits (see table 5). To identify school 

districts for site visits, we focused on sites that had (1) partnerships with 

institutions of higher education as part of discretionary grants under Titles 

II and III of ESEA and Title II of HEA and (2) percentages of at least one of 

the student subgroups that were higher than the average for the state. In 

addition, we worked to get a range of urban and rural locations and also 

Page 61 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

took into consideration the size of the district, amount of federal formula 

grant funding, and recommendations from state officials of districts with 

high or growing concentrations of English language learners. We visited 

one or two individual schools in each district at the elementary and 

secondary levels that either partnered with an institution of higher 

education as part of an Education grant-funded project or was 

recommended by school district officials. Using a standard set of 

questions, we asked district officials and school administrators about their 

use of federal funds, challenges in ensuring that teachers are equipped to 

instruct these students, and assistance needed and received from state 

agencies and Education. In addition, we gained insight from teachers 

working with these students by learning about their preservice and inservice training in relation to their on-the-job experiences. 

Table 5: School Districts GAO Visited in Four Selected States 

School district Location 

Los Angeles Unified School District Los Angeles, Calif. 

New Hope Elementary School District Thornton, Calif. 

Gwinnett County Public Schools Suwanee, Ga. 

Houston County Schools Perry, Ga. 

Lexington Public Schools Lexington, Nebr. 

Lincoln Public Schools Lincoln, Nebr. 

Austin Independent School District Austin, Tex. 

Canutillo Independent School District El Paso, Tex. 

Source: GAO 

To provide additional information from state and local educational 

officials on a national scale, including teachers, we analyzed nationally 

representative survey data collected by Education through its National 

Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and State Survey 

on the Implementation of No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). The NLSNCLB data are from a nationally representative survey of teachers, as well 

as of schools and school districts. The SSI-NCLB data are from surveys of 

state Title I and III Directors. We assessed the reliability of the NLS-NCLB 

and SSI-NCLB methodologies by (1) reviewing existing information and 

documentation about the survey data and (2) interviewing an agency 

official knowledgeable about the data. We found both of these surveys and 

methodologies to conform to generally accepted social science research 

standards. 

Analysis of 

Education’s Survey 

Data 

Page 62 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To review relevant funding and other assistance provided by Education, 

we first compiled a list of major federal grant programs from the 2008 

Guide to U.S. Department of Education Programs that can be used to 

prepare general classroom teachers to work with these student subgroups. 

For each program, we reviewed what is known about how much of the 

funding was used to prepare general classroom teachers, statutory 

requirements, and performance goals. Based on this review, we talked 

with Education officials from various divisions, including the Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), the Office of English 

Language Acquisition (OELA), OPE, and the Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), to confirm that we had identified the 

key programs that can be used to support teacher preparation for these 

student subgroups. In addition, we reviewed laws, regulations, and 

documents relevant to the 10 Education grant programs we identified. Due 

to our focus on Education’s key grants and providers of research and 

technical assistance, there may be other programs and Educationsupported entities that we did not identify that could be used to support 

the preparation and ongoing training of general classroom teachers for 

these student subgroups. 

Review of EducationFunded Grant 

Programs, Research, 

and Technical 

Assistance 

To understand how the department provides other assistance to help 

prepare teachers for instructing both student subgroups, we interviewed 

officials from selected regional and national Education-funded research 

and technical assistance providers (see app. II and III). To identify relevant 

research and technical assistance provided by Education, we identified a 

list of the key regional and national providers that receive funding and are 

overseen by various program offices departmentwide. We augmented our 

understanding of these providers by reviewing information from previous 

GAO reports; interviews with experts, state education officials, and school 

district officials; and the Web sites of the providers that were most 

relevant to our review. 

Of the universe of approximately 100 national and regional providers we 

initially identified, we selected 15 regional and 11 national providers to 

interview, each of which had a major focus on either students with 

disabilities or English language learners or both or a major focus on 

teacher preparation. In selecting providers for these interviews, we 

worked to achieve a balance of providers that focus on each subgroup 

and, to the extent possible, providers that either had a focus on assisting 

Page 63 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

prospective or practicing teachers or both.5 We also interviewed officials 

from four types of regional research and technical assistance providers 

that receive Education funding: (1) Regional Comprehensive Centers, (2) 

Regional Equity Assistance Centers, (3) Regional Educational 

Laboratories, and (4) Regional Resource Centers. From among the 

regional providers, we interviewed officials from these entities that served 

our four selected states for a total of 15 interviews.6

 We used a standard 

set of questions to ask about the extent to which national and regional 

providers provide assistance for prospective and practicing general 

classroom teachers on instructing students with disabilities and English 

language learners, the types of entities that access this information, and 

coordination with other Education-supported providers of research and 

technical assistance. We also collected and analyzed relevant 

documentation, such as requests for applications and statements of work. 

 

5

For those centers with a focus on students with disabilities, we used a secondary criterion 

to select those that did not specialize in a particular disability area (e.g., autism) and 

instead selected centers that focused more generally on all students with disabilities. 

6

The number of interviews conducted does not total 16 because the Southeast Regional 

Resource Center serves as the regional provider for two of our four selected states: Georgia 

and Texas. 

Page 64 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix II: Education-Funded Regional 

Research and Technical Assistance Providers Appendix II: Education-Funded Regional GAO Interviewed 

Research and Technical Assistance Providers 

GAO Interviewed 

As shown in table 6, we identified four types of regional research and 

technical assistance providers—supported by three Education offices—

that can assist states and school districts in preparing general classroom 

teachers to instruct either students with disabilities or English language 

learners or both student subgroups through a variety of means. We 

conducted interviews with officials from each of the 15 Education-funded 

regional research and technical assistance centers that serve the four 

states we visited, comprising four of each type of center, with one 

exception. We interviewed only three regional resource centers, as one 

regional resource center served two of our selected states. 

Table 6: Selected Regional-Level Research and Technical Assistance Providers 

Center Group served 

Education 

office 

Target 

audience Resources/assistance offered 

Regional Resource Centers 

(6 centers) 

Students with 

disabilities 

OSERS States Assistance to states in 

developing and implementing 

state improvement plans for 

students with disabilities 

Regional Comprehensive Centers 

(16 centers) 

Both OESE States Assistance to state educational 

agencies; leadership programs; 

and dissemination of research 

and best practices 

Regional Equity Assistance Centers 

(10 centers) 

English language 

learners 

OESE States, school 

districts 

Professional development; 

assistance developing and 

implementing equity programs; 

information on legal issues 

regarding equity 

Regional Educational Laboratories 

(10 centers) 

Both Institute of 

Education 

Sciences (IES) 

States, school 

districts 

Research on increasing 

achievement for students with 

disabilities and English language 

learners; expert-led seminars for 

educators 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation and interviews with agency officials. 

Page 65 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix III: Education-Funded National 

Research and Technical Assistance Providers Appendix III: Education-Funded National GAO Interviewed 

Research and Technical Assistance Providers 

GAO Interviewed 

National-level research and technical assistance providers, supported by 

five Education offices, help states, school districts, teachers, and parents 

with a variety of topics related to either students with disabilities or 

English language learners or both student subgroups. We conducted 

interviews with officials from the following Education-funded national 

research and technical assistance centers, as shown in table 7. 

Table 7: Selected National-Level Research and Technical Assistance Providers 

Center Group served 

Education 

office Target audience Resources/assistance offered 

National Center on Response 

to Intervention 

Both OSERS States Assistance on development and 

implementation of Response to 

Intervention policies for states; 

public access to information about 

Response to Intervention 

IDEA Partnership Students with 

disabilities 

OSERS School districts, 

teachers, administrators, 

teacher preparation 

programs 

Teaching and reference materials; 

facilitated dialogue among 

stakeholders 

National Dissemination 

Center for Children with 

Disabilities 

Students with 

disabilities 

OSERS National-level assistance 

centers, schools, 

teachers, families 

Teaching and reference materials; 

dissemination of existing materials 

National Clearinghouse for 

English Language Acquisition 

English language 

learners 

OELA States Research on increasing 

achievement for English language 

learners; resource guides for 

teachers 

Center for Research on the 

Educational Achievement and 

Teaching of English 

Language Learners 

English language 

learners 

IES Researchers, 

administrators, teachers 

Professional development for 

practicing teachers; Internet 

seminars for educators 

National High School Center Both OESE/OSERS Regional comprehensive 

centers 

Information on high school issues; 

Internet seminars 

What Works Clearinghouse Both IES States, administrators, 

teachers, parents 

Practice guides for teachers; 

assessment of education research 

Doing What Works Both OPEPD Teachers Teaching strategies 

IRIS Center for Training 

Enhancements 

Both OSERS Teacher preparation 

programs, states, school 

districts, teachers 

Online video examples of strategies 

for teachers; case studies 

Center on Instruction Both OESE/OSERS Regional comprehensive 

centers 

Professional development 

materials; research-based 

information 

National Comprehensive 

Center for Teacher Quality 

Both OESE/OSERS Regional comprehensive 

centers 

Teaching strategies; research and 

policy information 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation and interviews with agency officials. 

Page 66 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education 

Department of Education 

Page 67 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education 

Page 68 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 69 GAO-09-573 Teacher Preparation 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 

Gale Harris (Assistant Director) and Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-Charge) 

managed all aspects of the assignment. Miriam Hill, Heddi Nieuwsma, and 

Melissa Swearingen made significant contributions to this report in all 

aspects of the work. Marisa London also made contributions to the report. 

Kate van Gelder contributed to writing this report; Carolyn Boyce, Justin 

Fisher, Stuart Kaufman, and Shana Wallace provided key technical 

support; and Jessica Botsford provided legal support. Mimi Nguyen and 

Jeremy Sebest developed the graphics for the report. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130835) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

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

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper