GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, 

Committee on Education and Labor, 

House of Representatives 

TEACHER QUALITY

Sustained 

Coordination among 

Key Federal 

Education Programs 

Could Enhance State 

Efforts to Improve 

Teacher Quality 

July 2009 

GAO-09-593 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 2009

TEACHER QUALITY

Sustained Coordination among Key Federal 

Education Programs Could Enhance State Efforts to 

Highlights of GAO-09-593, a report to the Improve Teacher Quality 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and 

Competitiveness, Committee on Education 

and Labor, House of Representatives 

Policymakers and researchers have 

focused on improving the quality of 

our nation’s 3 million teachers to 

raise the achievement of students 

in key academic areas, such as 

reading and mathematics. Given 

the importance of teacher quality 

to student achievement and the key 

role federal and state governments 

play in supporting teacher quality, 

GAO’s objectives included 

examining (1) the extent that the 

U.S. Department of Education 

(Education) funds and coordinates 

teacher quality programs, (2) 

studies that Education conducts on 

teacher quality and how it provides 

and coordinates research-related 

assistance to states and school 

districts, and (3) challenges to 

collaboration within states and 

how Education helps address those 

challenges. GAO interviewed 

experts and Education officials, 

administered surveys to officials at 

state educational agencies and 

state agencies for higher education 

in the fall of 2008, and conducted 

site visits to three states. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of Education implement 

a strategy for sustained 

coordination among program 

offices. A key purpose would be to 

aid information and resource 

sharing, and strengthen linkages 

among its efforts to help improve 

teacher quality. While Education 

will consider forming a crossprogram group, it favors shortterm, issue-specific coordination. 

We continue to believe sustained 

coordination is needed. 

Education allocates billions of federal dollars for teacher quality improvement 

efforts through many statutorily authorized programs that nine offices 

administer. Education officials said these offices share information with one 

another as needed, and from time to time Education has established and 

completed broader collaborative efforts. Yet, GAO found little sustained 

coordination and no strategy for working systematically across program lines. 

Education also has not described how it will coordinate crosscutting teacher 

quality improvement activities intended to support its goal of improving 

student achievement in its annual performance plan. Our previous work has 

identified the use of strategic and annual plans as a practice that can help 

enhance and sustain collaboration. Without clear strategies for sustained 

coordination, Education may be missing key opportunities to leverage and 

align its resources, activities, and processes to assist states, school districts, 

and institutions of higher education improve teacher quality. 

Education has conducted evaluations for some of its teacher quality programs 

and has awarded grants to researchers for a variety of research on teacher 

quality interventions, which are intended to inform policymakers and 

educators about program operations and which programs or interventions are 

having an impact. While evaluations have been done or are under way for 

about two-fifths of these programs, little is known about whether most of the 

programs are achieving their desired results. Education provides information 

from evaluations and also from research through the Internet and a system of 

regional and national providers. These providers also either conduct or 

synthesize research and provide assistance mainly to states and school 

districts. These providers coordinate among themselves and with one another 

in various ways. 

State agency officials reported through our surveys that limited resources and 

incompatible data systems were the greatest challenges to their collaborative 

efforts to improve teacher quality. State officials reported that data systems 

could be used to inform teacher quality policy efforts by linking student and 

teacher data, or linking data from kindergarten through 12th grade and the 

postsecondary education systems. To help address these challenges, 

Education provides some financial support and other assistance. For example, 

one $65 million program that helps states develop statewide data systems also 

received another $250 million in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009. Also, the act requires states to report on the progress they are 

making toward linking statewide data systems that allow matching of 

individual student achievement to individual teachers. This additional funding 

could help states defray costs associated with these efforts. 

View GAO-09-593 or key components.

For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby 

at (202) 512-7215 or AshbyC@gao.gov. To 

view the e-supplement online, click on GAO09-594SP. 
Page i GAO-09-593 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 3 

Education Funds a Wide Array of Programs Intended to Improve 

Teacher Quality and Has Taken Some Steps to Coordinate These 

Programs on Occasion 11 

Offices Administering Education’s Teacher Improvement Programs 

Use a Variety of Methods to Target Monitoring, and Education Is 

Beginning to Implement Mechanisms Intended to Improve and 

Coordinate These Efforts 21 

Education Conducts a Variety of Teacher Quality Improvement 

Studies and Provides Assistance to States and Districts through 

Regional and National Service Providers, Which Coordinate in 

Various Ways 23 

States Face Several Challenges in Collaborating Internally to 

Improve Teacher Quality; Education Provides Some Assistance 

to Help Address These Challenges 32 

Conclusion 38 

Recommendation for Executive Action 39 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 39 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 42 

Appendix II Primary Programs: Twenty-three Programs 

Providing Funding Specifically to Improve the 

Quality of Teachers 48 

Appendix III Programs That Support Broad Objectives but 

 Allow or Require Some Funds to Be Used for 

Teacher Quality 55 

Appendix IV Institute of Education Sciences’ Sponsored 

Research on Teacher Quality, 2003–2009 61 

Teacher Quality 
Appendix V Comments from the U.S. Department of Education 65 

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 67 

Tables 

Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities of State and Local Education 

Institutions 6 

Table 2: Principal and Program Offices within Education 8 

Table 3: Activities Funded by Programs Specifically Focused on 

Teacher Quality 15 

Table 4: Offices That Administer the 23 Programs Focused 

Primarily on Teacher Quality 18 

Table 5: Evaluations of the 23 Programs Specifically Focused on 

Teacher Quality 25 

Figures 

Figure 1: Career Path of Teachers 5 

Figure 2: Funding Levels of the 23 Programs Specifically Focused 

on Teacher Quality 13 

Figure 3: SEA and SAHE Views of the Usefulness of Education 

Assistance Vary 29 

Figure 4: Challenges to Collaborative Efforts within States to 

Improve Teacher Quality 33 

Page ii GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Abbreviations 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

HEA Higher Education Act 

IES Institute of Education Sciences 

IHE Institution of higher education 

K-12 Kindergarten through 12th grade 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

Recover Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

REL Regional Educational Laboratories 

SAHE State agency for higher education 

SEA State education agency 

STEM Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

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 iii GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Page 1 GAO-09-593 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

July 6, 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: 

Nationwide there are about 3 million teachers employed in approximately 

14,000 public school districts with about 89,000 schools. Policymakers, 

researchers, and educators have focused on improving the quality of our 

nation’s teachers in an attempt to raise the achievement of students in key 

academic areas, such as reading and mathematics. A variety of approaches 

have been taken to improve the quality of teachers, including focusing on 

instructional practices. Among these approaches, improving the 

qualifications of teachers is a focus of federal policy. Specifically, the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), which amended and reauthorized 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), established 

federal requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects be “highly 

qualified.” This means teachers must generally have a bachelor’s degree, 

be fully certified, and demonstrate their knowledge of the subjects they 

teach. According to the U.S. Department of Education (Education), most 

teachers meet their states’ requirements to be considered highly qualified 

under ESEA. However, the percentage of teachers who are not highly 

qualified is higher for certain populations of teachers, such as special 

education teachers and teachers in high-poverty and high-minority 

schools.1

ESEA as well as several other federal statutes, such as the Higher 

Education Act and the Education Sciences Reform Act, authorize various 

grant programs and other forms of assistance, like research, for states, 

1

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Program Studies Services, State and 

Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VII—Teacher Quality 

Under NCLB: Final Report (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). High-poverty and lowpoverty schools are respectively those in the top and bottom quartiles when schools in a 

state are ranked by level of poverty in descending order; most states based level of poverty 

on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch in the school. 

Teacher Quality 
 

school districts, and institutions of higher education to help individuals 

meet the teacher qualification requirements as well as other efforts aimed 

at improving teacher quality. This funding and assistance are administered 

by Education, either directly or indirectly through state and local entities. 

Student access to high-quality teachers may be affected, in part, by the 

extent to which the kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) and higher 

education systems work together at the federal, state, and local levels. 

However, it is unclear how conducive the current configuration of entities 

is to these complementary relationships. Given the importance of teacher 

quality to student achievement and the role that the federal and state 

governments play in this area, you asked us to address the following 

questions: (1) To what extent does Education fund and coordinate teacher 

quality programs? (2) How does Education target monitoring of its teacher 

quality program grantees and coordinate these efforts? (3) What 

evaluation and research does Education conduct on teacher quality, and 

how does it provide and coordinate research-related assistance to states 

and school districts? (4) What are the challenges to collaboration within 

states and how does Education address these challenges? 

To conduct our work, we used a variety of methods, including interviews 

with Education officials, surveys of states and the District of Columbia, 

and site visits in three states. To learn about the major federal programs 

supporting teacher quality efforts, we selected programs from the Guide to 

U.S. Department of Education Programs 2008 and verified that these 

were the relevant programs with Education officials. For each grant 

program, we reviewed federal laws, nonregulatory guidance, policies, 

procedure manuals, and other documentation, and interviewed officials 

from a range of Education offices overseeing teacher quality programs to 

determine how they coordinate program efforts as well as how they 

monitor grantees. We also interviewed officials from a selection of 

relevant Education-funded research organizations and related assistance 

providers at the regional and national levels to understand how Education 

funds and supports efforts to improve teacher quality. To learn about the 

specific areas of teacher quality that state agencies are focusing on and the 

challenges to collaboration within their states,2

 we administered two 

 

2

“Collaboration” is a broad term that can include activities that others have variously 

defined as “cooperation,” “coordination,” and “integration,” and previous GAO work has 

identified various practices that can enhance collaboration, such as establishing 

compatible policies and procedures to operate across organizational boundaries. See 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 2 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

surveys between August and November 2008—one to heads of state 

educational agencies and another to heads of state agencies for higher 

education in states and the District of Columbia using self-administered, 

electronic questionnaires posted on the Internet.3

 We received a 94 

percent response rate for the state educational agency survey and a 96 

percent response rate for the state agency for higher education survey. W

also conducted site visits to three states—Louisiana, New Jersey, 

Oregon—that were selected based on their having initiatives that focus on 

teacher quality, such as coordinating bodies that are intended to bridge the 

K-12 and higher education systems,

e 

and 

 

4

 and on diversity in terms of 

geographic location, population, and amount of federal teacher quality 

program funding. We met with state officials in each state and, to 

understand the local perspective, we met with officials in at least one 

school district and two universities in each state. A more detailed 

explanation of our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I. 

The surveys and a more complete tabulation of aggregated results can be 

viewed at GAO-09-594SP. 

We conducted our work from February 2008 through 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. 

Research points to teacher quality as an important school-level factor 

influencing student learning and ultimately preparing children for their 

futures as citizens and workers in a knowledge-based economy. However, 

efforts to improve the quality of teachers face several challenges. One 

Background 

3

Because of differences in higher education governance among states, state agencies for 

higher education include offices, commissions, boards, committees, departments, or 

organizations with governing authority over higher education in the state. 

4

Coordinating bodies work to integrate a student’s education from kindergarten through a 

4-year college degree by coordinating statewide education initiatives and reforms. 

Examples of such coordinating bodies include what are commonly referred to as P-16/20 

councils, or prekindergarten through college/master’s, though some states refer to them 

differently (e.g., commission, roundtable, committee, initiative, etc.). On the basis of our 

review of the literature, we found that a large number of these bodies address some aspect 

of teacher quality. 

Page 3 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

challenge is a lack of consensus about what makes teachers effective. 

Even though research demonstrates that some teachers affect their 

students’ academic growth more than other teachers, research has not 

categorically identified the specific indicators of teacher quality, such as 

the characteristics, classroom practices, and qualifications that are most 

likely to improve student learning.5

 Some researchers have shown that 

with the exception of a few factors, they cannot state, with a strong degree 

of certainty and consistency, which aspects of teacher quality matter most 

for student learning. Another challenge is the high attrition rates and 

shortages of teachers, especially in high-poverty areas. For example, 

almost half of teachers leave the profession in the first 5 years of teaching, 

and there is an anticipated surge in retirements of teachers from the baby 

boom generation. Moreover, research has shown that many students, 

especially those in high-poverty and high-minority schools, have teachers 

who have limited knowledge of the subjects they teach. In addition, there 

are concerns that graduates of teacher education programs are 

inadequately prepared to teach to high standards and that once teachers 

are in the classroom, training to help remedy this situation is sporadic and 

uncoordinated. 

While many teachers follow a traditional career path of preparation 

followed by ongoing professional development, there are also alternative 

career paths. Many prospective teachers receive their undergraduate 

degrees through teacher preparation programs administered by 

institutions of higher education. Traditional teaching preparation 

programs typically include field-based experience, courses in specific 

subject matter, and strategies of instruction or pedagogy. Within 

institutions of higher education, these prospective teachers generally learn 

subject matter content in schools of arts and sciences and learn pedagogy 

in schools of education. Under this traditional approach, prospective 

teachers must complete all their certification requirements before 

beginning to teach. Teachers may also gain certification through 

alternative routes designed for prospective teachers who have been out of 

the job market (e.g., stay-at-home mothers) or have a career in a different 

field and who hold at least an undergraduate degree. Alternative route 

candidates receive training needed to meet the certification requirements 

of other teachers while teaching in the classroom. Generally, after 

 

5

Laura Goe and Leslie M. Stickler, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Making the 

Most of Recent Research (Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher 

Quality, 2008). 

Page 4 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

completing a traditional or alternative teacher preparation program, 

teachers in the classroom participate in ongoing training or professional 

development. Training for new and veteran teachers may differ, with some 

states and school districts providing mentoring or induction programs for 

new teachers. Induction for new teachers may include district- or schoollevel orientation sessions, special in-service training, mentoring by an 

experienced teacher, and classroom observation. See figure 1 for an 

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

Figure 1: Career Path of 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

Source: 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

Entities at the local, state, and federal levels each play a role in the 

preparation and ongoing professional development training of teachers. 

The roles and responsibilities of these entities sometimes overlap (see 

table 1). For example, about half of alternative teacher certification 

programs are administered by institutions of higher education, and school 

districts, state educational agencies (SEA), and other entities can also 

offer alternative routes to certification. 

Page 5 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities of State and Local Education Institutions 

Responsible entity for each activitya

Education activity 

State educational 

agency 

State agency for 

higher educationb

Institution of 

higher education 

School 

district School 

Legal and administrative 

responsibility for state education 

system 

• • • 

Recruitment • • • • 

Hiring • 

Compensation • 

Retention • • • 

Certification • 

Classroom teacher training • • • • • 

Teacher assignments • • 

Teacher evaluations • 

Alternative routes to certification • • • 

Traditional routes to certification • • 

Mentoring or induction • • • 

Academic program approval at public 

institutions of higher education • 

Sources: Education, Congressional Research Service, and state education sources. 

a

The roles and responsibilities of each entity may vary from state to state depending on the school 

governance system; for example, some states delegate more control to the local level than others do. 

b

State agencies for higher education have varied levels of formal authority, such as authority for 

academic programs and budget, over public institutions of higher education. 

State agencies for higher education (SAHE)—also referred to as the board 

of regents or the department, commission, or council for postsecondary or 

higher education—can also play a role in teacher quality. These agencies 

oversee state institutions of higher education where most teachers are 

trained. SAHEs generally approve of new academic programs at 

institutions of higher education and some may have budgetary authority. 

School districts, institutions of higher education, and states collect and 

report data, which include tracking teachers’ professional development 

hours, maintaining records of certified teachers, tracking student test 

scores and graduation rates, as well as producing teacher supply and 

demand studies. These and other data are intended to inform efforts such 

as improving schools, reducing student achievement gaps, and tracking 

the highly qualified status of all teachers. To make better use of these data, 

Page 6 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

many states are putting in place longitudinal data systems that link data, 

such as student test scores and enrollment patterns, of individuals or 

groups of students over time. In addition, many states are using or have 

interest in using growth models—a term that refers to a variety of methods 

for tracking changes in a variable over time—to measure progress for 

schools and for student groups or individual students. For example, one 

type of model (known as a value-added model) measures students’ gains 

from previous test scores. GAO has reported that states with a longitudinal 

data system will be better positioned to implement a growth model than 

they would have been without it.6

The federal government plays an important role in education. Education’s 

mission is, among other things, to ensure equal access to education and 

promote educational excellence throughout the nation by supporting state 

and local educational improvement efforts, as well as improving 

coordination and management of federal education programs. For 

example, Education provides financial assistance through various formula 

and competitive grant programs. Formula grants allocate federal funds to 

states or school districts in accordance with a distribution formula 

prescribed by statute or administrative regulation. Competitive grants are 

awarded through a competitive process, whereby grant applications are 

reviewed according to published selection criteria and legislative and 

regulatory requirements established for the program. Education has 

discretion to determine which applications best address the program 

requirements and are thus worthy of funding. In addition, Education 

monitors and conducts activities related to the particular program and 

grantees receiving these funds. Education has eight principal offices 

responsible for specific program areas. These principal offices award and 

manage all grant programs for that program area. In addition, each 

principal office contains several program offices that administer the dayto-day activities of one or more grant programs, such as those authorized 

in Title I of ESEA (see table 2). Thirty-two program offices manage about 

150 grant programs departmentwide. 

 

6

GAO, No Child Left Behind: States Face Challenges in Measuring Academic Growth that 

Education’s Initiatives May Help Address, GAO-06-661 (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006). 

Page 7 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Table 2: Principal and Program Offices within Education 

Principal office Program offices 

Office of English Language Acquisition • Continuation and Professional Grants Division 

Institute of Education Sciences • National Center for Education Research 

• National Center for Special Education Research 

• National Center for Education Statistics 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education • Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs 

• School Support and Technology Programs 

• Impact Aid Programs 

• Student Achievement and School Accountability 

• Office of Migrant Education 

• Office of Indian Education 

Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools • Center for School Preparedness 

• Drug-Violence Prevention-State Programs 

• Drug-Violence Prevention-National Programs 

• Health, Mental Health, Environmental Health and Physical Education

• Character and Civic Education 

• Policy and Cross-Cutting Programs 

Office of Innovation and Improvement • Improvement Programs 

• Fund for the Improvement in Education 

• Parental Options and Information 

• Teacher Quality Programs 

• Technology in Education Programs 

Office of Postsecondary Education • Higher Education Preparation and Support Service 

• Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Service 

• International Education Programs Service 

• Teacher and Student Development Programs Service 

• Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services • National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

• Rehabilitation Services Administration 

• Office of Special Education Programs 

Office of Vocational and Adult Education • Adult Education and Literacy Division 

• Academic and Technical Education Division 

• Policy Research and Evaluation Staff 

Source: Education. 

A goal of ESEA is improving student achievement so that all students will 

be proficient in math and reading by 2014. To accomplish this goal, 

Page 8 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Education has established a series of strategic objectives that include 

improving teacher quality.7

 To assess its progress in meeting this 

objective, Education has established performance measures in its strate

plan. These measures all relate to having highly qualified teachers in 

academic classes at elementary and secondary schools, including low- and 

high-poverty schools. These measures are also included in Education’s 

annual performance plan. These plans are intended to provide a direct 

linkage between an agency’s longer-term goals (as defined in the strategic 

plan) and what its managers and staff are doing on a day-to-day basis. 

gic 

core 

 

A number of federal laws govern teacher quality. With the 2001 

reauthorization of ESEA, which requires public school teachers to be 

highly qualified in every core academic subject they teach, the federal 

government established specific criteria for teachers.8

 Title I of ESEA 

requires every state and school district receiving Title I funds to develop 

and submit a plan for how it intends to meet the teacher qualification 

requirements, which is part of a broader plan outlining how it will meet 

other requirements of the act such as those requiring challenging academic 

content and student achievement standards. In addition, the state plan 

must establish each district’s and school’s annual measurable objectives 

for increasing the number of teachers meeting qualification requirements 

and receiving high-quality professional development with the goal of 

ensuring that all teachers met the requirements by the end of the 2005-2006 

school year. While there is evidence that most teachers meet their states’ 

requirements to be considered highly qualified, schools and school 

districts with high student poverty rates have generally had particular 

difficulty attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers; as a result, 

their students are often assigned to teachers with less experience, 

education, and skills than those who teach other students. 

As GAO has reported, Title II of ESEA provides states and districts with 

funding to help them implement various initiatives for raising teacher and 

7

Under the Government Performance and Results Act (Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993)), federal 

agencies are required to develop strategic plans, performance plans, and performance 

reports. The plans are to include long-term and annual goals, respectively, along with the 

means for accomplishing the goals. The performance report is to include the extent to 

which the goals have been achieved. 

8

Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign 

languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography. 

Page 9 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

principal qualifications.9 In addition, other federal laws that authorize 

programs intended to influence teacher quality include the following: 

• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the primary federal law 

addressing the educational needs of students with disabilities. The act, as 

amended, cross-references the ESEA “highly qualified” teacher definition, 

but unlike ESEA, this act requires that all special education teachers—not 

just those teaching core subjects—must meet certain requirements. 

• The Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended by the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act, authorizes most of Education’s programs targeted to 

postsecondary education. Specifically, the act established discretionary 

grants to prepare prospective teachers and accountability requirements for 

teacher preparation programs and states.10 For example, it requires annual 

reporting on the quality of traditional and alternative teacher preparation 

programs, including the efforts of institutions of higher education to 

increase the number of prospective teachers teaching in high-need areas 

and being responsive to the needs of school districts.11

• The Education Sciences Reform Act is intended to strengthen the principal 

education research, statistics, and evaluation activities of Education. 

Within Education, it established the Institute of Education Sciences, which 

has a mission to provide reliable information about the condition and 

progress of education in the United States, educational practices that 

support learning and improve achievement, and the effectiveness of 

federal and other education programs. 

 

9

GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education’s Information 

Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification Requirements, GAO-06-25

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2005). 

10GAO has reported that in general, HEA provisions tend to focus on the preparation of 

prospective teachers, while ESEA provisions tend to focus on training for teachers already 

in the classroom and are funded at a higher level than HEA programs. See GAO, Teacher 

Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluations of Key Federal Efforts, 

GAO-07-861T (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2007). 

11Title II, section 205 of the HEA, as amended by the Higher Education Opportunity Act, 

Pub. L. No. 110-315, requires the annual preparation and submission of reports on teacher 

preparation and qualifications from institutions of higher education that conduct a 

traditional teacher preparation program or alternative route to state certification or 

licensure. Section 206 requires these institutions of higher education to set annual 

quantifiable goals for increasing the number of prospective teachers trained in teacher 

shortage areas and to provide specific assurances to the Secretary of Education that 

include being responsive to the needs of school districts in which the institution’s 

graduates are likely to teach. 

Page 10 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Over a third of the programs that Education administers support efforts to 

improve teacher quality. Many of these statutorily authorized programs 

supporting teacher quality are intended to specifically support teacher 

quality activities, such as professional development training for teachers 

already serving in the classroom; the remaining programs support teacher 

quality activities but do so in pursuit of other program purposes or goals. 

Education officials said they have taken some steps to share information 

among the multiple offices administering these programs and have 

established and completed broader collaborative efforts on occasion. 

Education Funds a 

Wide Array of 

Programs Intended to 

Improve Teacher 

Quality and Has 

Taken Some Steps to 

Coordinate These 

Programs on 

Occasion 

Education Administers 56 

Programs Supporting 

Efforts to Improve Teacher 

Quality, Especially for 

Local Efforts to Train 

Existing Teachers 

In fiscal year 2009, Education administered 56 statutorily authorized 

programs that support efforts to improve teacher quality. Of these 56 

programs, Education allocated about $4.1 billion to 23 programs that have, 

as a specific purpose, improving teacher quality, including increasing the 

number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom. The remaining 33 

programs do not have the primary purpose of improving teacher quality 

and focus on other program goals or purposes, such as increasing student 

access to institutions of higher education. Nevertheless, these programs 

allow or require some portion of program funding to be used for teacher 

quality activities. Education officials said that they do not collect specific 

data on the amount of funding going to teacher quality activities for most 

of these programs. Appendixes II and III provide information about each 

of the programs. 

Of the 23 programs that specifically focus on improving teacher quality, a 

majority of the funds (approximately $3 billion) are concentrated in one 

program, the Improving Teacher Quality State Grant program. This 

formula grant is allocated primarily to school districts and may be used for 

a wide variety of activities to improve teacher quality, such as providing 

funding for teacher preparation, training for teachers already in the 

classroom, and recruitment.12 In addition, states may retain approximately 

5 percent of these program funds to support teacher quality efforts—

Twenty-three Programs 

Specifically Focus on Teacher 

Quality 

 

12According to Education, during the 2007-2008 school year, districts used most of the 

funding for hiring highly qualified teachers to reduce classroom size and professional 

development training for teachers already teaching in the classroom. 

Page 11 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

generally split evenly between state educational agencies (to support 

state-level teacher initiatives) and state agencies for higher education (to 

support partnerships between institutions of higher education and highneed school districts that work to provide training to teachers already 

teaching in the classroom). 

As shown in figure 2, 16 of the 23 programs specifically focused on teacher 

quality each received less than $50 million. Nearly all of these programs 

are competitive grants, and each has its own policies, applications, award 

competitions, reporting requirements, and, in some cases, federal 

evaluations. Furthermore, these programs are focused to support specific 

activities, such as improving teachers’ knowledge and understanding of 

American history, recruiting midcareer professionals to teaching, or 

training existing teachers in music, dance, and drama. 

Page 12 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Figure 2: Funding Levels of the 23 Programs Specifically Focused on Teacher 

Quality 

Fiscal year 2009 program funding levels (Dollars in millions)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Sources: GAO analysis of documents obtained from and discussions with Education.

2,948

868

262

60

Improving 

Teacher Quality 

State Grants

Teacher Quality 

Partnership Grant

Special Education–

State Personnel 

Development Grant

English Language 

Acquisition National 

Professional

Development

Transition to Teaching

Striving Readers

National Writing Project

School Leadership 

Program

Troops-to-Teachers

Ready-to-Teach

Advanced Certification or 

Advanced Credentialing

Indian Education Professional 

Development

Professional Development for 

Arts Educators

Territories and Freely Associated 

States Education

Academies for American 

History and Civics

Teachers for Competitive 

Tomorrow Program–

Baccalaureate STEM and Foreign 

Language Teacher Training

Teachers for Competitive 

Tomorrow Program–

Masters STEM and Foreign 

Language Training

Enhancing Education 

Through Technology 

Mathematics and 

Science Partnership

Teaching American 

History

Early Reading First

Teacher Incentive Fund

Special Education–

Personnel Development 

to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with 

Disabilities

Over $500 

million (1)

Between $51 million and 

$500 million (6)

Between $15 million 

and $50 million (7)

Less than 

$15 million (9)

Note: Education’s fiscal year 2010 budget request proposes eliminating 2 of these 23 programs: the 

Ready-to-Teach program and the Academies for American History and Civics program. In fiscal year 

2009, both programs are funded at less than $15 million. Education proposes eliminating the Readyto-Teach program because it limits eligibility only to telecommunications providers and not additional 

Page 13 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

professional development providers that utilize other delivery methods, such as the Internet and other 

digital media platforms. Education proposes eliminating the American History and Civics program 

because the program is considered too small to leverage funding effectively and Education has 

minimal evidence that the program has a positive impact on participating students and teachers. 

Further, Education states that school districts and other entities that wish to implement history and 

civics training programs can use funds provided under other federal programs, such as the Teaching 

American History program. 

As illustrated in table 3, most of the 23 programs allow funds to be used 

for professional development training for teachers already in the 

classroom, but many allow grantees to use funding for a range of activities 

throughout a teacher’s career path, such as teacher preparation, teacher 

recruitment or retention, certification or licensure, and induction or 

mentoring. 

Page 14 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Table 3: Activities Funded by Programs Specifically Focused on Teacher Quality 

Program

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants

Mathematics and Science Partnerships

Enhancing Education Through Technology Program

National Writing Project

Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing

Troops-to-Teachers

Early Reading First

Striving Readers

Teacher Incentive Fund

Territories and Freely Associated States Education Grant Program

Indian Education Professional Development Grantsc

School Leadership Program 

Teaching American History

Transition to Teaching Program

Professional Development for Arts Educators

Ready-to-Teach Grant Program

Academies for American History and Civics

English Language Acquisition Professional Development Program

Special Education–Personnel Development to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities

Special Education–State Personnel Development Grant Program

Teacher Quality Partnership Grants

Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Masters STEM and 

Foreign Language Teacher Training

Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate STEM 

and Foreign Language Teacher Training

Recruitment or retention

Teacher preparationa

Certification or licensure

Induction or mentoringb

Professional development

Compensation Source: Analysis of statutes authorizing these programs and Education documents.

a

The category “teacher preparation” may include teaching residency programs. A teaching residency 

program for prospective teachers is a school-based teacher preparation program for recent college 

graduates and midcareer professional s who are not teaching. These prospective teachers teach 

alongside a mentor teacher and receive concurrent instruction in the teaching of a content area in 

which the teacher will become certified. 

Page 15 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

b

Induction for new teachers might include district- or school-level orientation sessions, special inservice training, mentoring by an experienced teacher, classroom observation, and formative 

assessment. 

c

Although one of the purposes stated in the statute authorizing the Indian Education Professional 

Development Grants program is to provide professional development, the focus of the fiscal year 

2009 grant competition is on preservice or teacher preparation. 

The remaining 33 programs allow or require portions of their funds to be 

used for teacher quality activities, but their primary focus is not on 

improving the quality of teachers. Education does not routinely track 

spending on teacher quality activities for nearly all of these programs.13

Specifically, only 3 of these 33 programs have collected information about 

the portion of funds spent on teacher-related activities. For example, 

according to Education, ESEA Title I, Part A, which provides support to 

programs designed to address the needs of educationally disadvantaged 

children, also provided approximately $1.9 billion (or about 8 percent of 

Title I, Part A funds) for spending on training for existing teachers in fiscal 

year 2009.14 According to Education, between fiscal years 2000 and 2008, 

the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary EducationComprehensive Program—a program supporting innovative reform 

projects for improving the quality of postsecondary education and 

increasing student access—awarded about $82 million in grants for 

teacher quality-related activities. For example, in fiscal year 2007 Western 

Oregon University received a grant totaling $685,685 to support a 

statewide collaboration of institutions of higher education to build the 

capacity of elementary grades math and science instruction. Education 

officials said the department does not collect data on expenditures for 

most other programs in this category. 

Thirty-three Programs Allow or 

Require Portions of Funds to 

Be Used for Teacher Quality 

Activities but Have Other 

Program Goals or Purposes 

In addition to the funds provided through the regular fiscal year 2009 

appropriations for Education, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) provides additional funds to several of 

these 56 teacher quality programs for fiscal year 2009. For example, $200 

million in Recovery Act funds was provided to the Teacher Incentive 

 

13These 33 programs have other primary goals or purposes, such as providing assistance to 

rural school districts to help them meet state academic goals, supporting career and 

technical skills of secondary or postsecondary students, or paying the salaries of teachers 

serving certain student populations. 

14This total includes an estimated $1.15 billion from the fiscal year 2009 appropriation and 

about $800 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 

111-5). 

Page 16 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Fund, which is a competitive grant program intended to help states and 

school districts design performance-based teacher compensation systems 

that incorporate student performance as a factor in assessing the 

effectiveness of practicing teachers.15 Moreover, the Recovery Act requires 

that the Secretary of Education set aside $5 billion for State Incentive 

Grants, referred to by Education as the Reach for the Top program, and 

the establishment of an Innovation Fund. Education is providing most of 

this $5 billion of funding to states for efforts that could include making 

improvements in evaluating teacher effectiveness as well as ensuring that 

all students have access to highly qualified and effective teachers. 

Appendix II contains information on the 23 programs receiving Recovery 

Act funds. 

Education Has Taken 

Some Steps to Coordinate 

These Programs and 

Completed Broader 

Collaborative Efforts on 

Occasion 

According to Education officials, the multiple offices administering the 23 

programs specifically focused on teacher quality coordinate with one 

another, and on occasion the department has established and completed 

broader collaborative efforts. Federal support for teacher quality is 

dispersed across a wide array of grant programs in Education, with nine 

program offices responsible for administering them (see table 4). 

Education’s program office officials said their offices take some steps to 

coordinate with one another, such as participating in informal discussions 

to share ideas, attending and presenting at one another’s conferences, and 

reviewing one another’s draft grant announcements. In addition, officials 

said that they have formed task groups to address broader issues and 

phase them out once their tasks are complete. For example, in early 2003, 

Education formed a teacher quality policy group under the auspices of the 

Office of the Undersecretary of Education to coordinate multiple offices’ 

efforts related to ESEA implementation of the highly qualified teacher 

requirements. Nevertheless, in the past, GAO’s and Education’s Inspector 

General’s findings have shown that Education’s programs could better 

plan and coordinate to, among other things, leverage expertise and 

resources as well as guide consideration of different options for 

addressing potential problems among the current configuration of 

 

15Other teacher quality programs that received Recovery Act funds and that are specifically 

focused on teacher quality include the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program 

and the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program. 

Page 17 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

programs.16 While Education’s collaborative efforts have occurred 

intermittently, several Education officials told us that they see value in 

routinely working together to exchange information across the program 

offices. Officials we spoke with noted that this type of sustained 

coordination required support and attention from senior departmental 

officials, such as formalizing the responsibilities and roles of a working 

group and its members. Given that the Recovery Act provides funds to 

improve teacher effectiveness, Education officials said that this presents 

an opportunity to coordinate Education’s resources to improve teacher 

quality. Specifically, Education officials said that they recently have 

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. 

Table 4: Offices That Administer the 23 Programs Focused Primarily on Teacher Quality 

Principal officesa

 Program offices Teacher quality programs 

Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education 

School Support and Technology 

Programs 

• Territories and Freely Associated States Education Grant 

Program 

• Enhancing Education Through Technology Program 

Academic Improvement and 

Teacher Quality 

• Striving Readers 

• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 

• Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

• Teacher Incentive Fund 

• Early Reading First 

Office of Indian Education • Indian Education Professional Development Grants 

 

16GAO, Troops to Teachers: Program Brings More Men and Minorities into Teaching 

Workforce, but Education Could Improve Management to Enhance Results, GAO-06-265

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2006); Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better 

Coordination Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher 

Requirements, GAO-04-659 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004); and U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of the Inspector General, Overlapping Services in the Department of 

Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education Programs, Audit Report No. EDOIG/X07F0002 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2006). 

Page 18 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Principal officesa Program offices Teacher quality programs 

Office of Innovation and 

Improvement 

Teacher Quality Programs • Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing 

• School Leadership Program 

• Teaching American History 

• National Writing Project 

• Transition to Teaching Program 

• Troops-to-Teachers 

• Academies for American History and Civics 

• Teacher Quality Partnership Grantsb

Improvement Programs • Professional Development for Arts Educators 

Technology in Education 

Programs 

• Ready-to-Teach Grant Program 

Office of Postsecondary 

Education 

Teacher and Student 

Development Programs Service 

• Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: 

Baccalaureate STEM and Foreign Language Teacher Training

• Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Masters 

STEM and Foreign Language Teacher Training 

Office of English Language 

Acquisition 

Continuation and Professional 

Grants Division 

• English Language Acquisition Professional Development 

Program 

Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services 

Office of Special Education 

Programs 

• Special Education-State Personnel Development Grant 

Program 

• Special Education-Personnel Development to Improve 

Services and Results for Children with Disabilities 

Source: GAO analysis of Education documentation. 

a

A principal office is an organizational unit of Education responsible for administering grant programs. 

A program office is a subunit of a principal office that conducts the daily work of administering grant 

programs. 

b

As of fiscal year 2009, the Teacher Quality Partnership Program was moved from the Office of 

Postsecondary Education to the Office of Innovation and Improvement. However, the Office of 

Postsecondary Education will continue overseeing all grants awarded prior to fiscal year 2009. 

Education officials said that although several teacher quality programs 

support similar activities, differing statutory requirements can hamper 

coordination among the programs. Specifically, some officials said that 

statutory barriers, such as programs with differing definitions for similar 

populations of grantees, create an impediment to coordination. For 

example, Education officials told us that the Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships grant and the Improving Teacher Quality State (Title II, Part 

A) Grant to institutions of higher education both require partnerships that 

include a “high-need” school district. However, while the Title II, Part A 

program’s authorizing legislation contains a specific statutory definition of 

a high-need school district, the Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

program allows states to define this term. This may hinder states’ ability to 

coordinate resources among these initiatives because in most states far 

fewer school districts meet the Title II, Part A definition than meet the 

Page 19 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

definition that the state develops for the Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships program. 

Education has not described in its annual performance plan how it will 

coordinate various crosscutting teacher quality activities supporting its 

goal of improving student achievement. Our previous work has identified 

using strategic and annual plans as a practice that can help enhance and 

sustain collaboration.17 As indicated in Education’s strategic plan required 

by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), one of 

Education’s primary goals is improving student achievement so that all 

students will be proficient in math and reading by 2014. To accomplish this 

goal, it has established improving teacher quality as a strategic objective. 

However, the annual performance plan neither describes how Education 

coordinates or will coordinate its teacher quality efforts nor identifies 

barriers to such coordination. GPRA offers a structured means for 

identifying multiple programs—within and outside the agency—that are to 

contribute to the same or similar goals and for describing coordination 

efforts to ensure that goals are consistent and program efforts are 

mutually reinforcing. As GAO has previously reported, agencies can 

strengthen their commitment to work collaboratively by articulating their 

efforts in formal documents, such as in a planning document.18 We have 

also reported that uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, 

confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall 

effectiveness of the federal effort.19

 

17GAO, Results Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

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

18GAO-06-15. 

19GAO, Managing for Results: Building on Agencies’ Strategic Plans to Improve Federal 

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

Page 20 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Officials we spoke with in four principal offices overseeing some of the 

teacher quality improvement programs said that they use a variety of 

methods and sources of information throughout the life of the grant 

process to gain insight into the performance of grantees and to target 

monitoring assistance accordingly. To help ensure grantee accountability 

for using teacher quality program resources, monitoring begins with preaward planning, training, and guidance to potential grantees and continues 

through all phases of the award and postaward processes (i.e., a so-called 

cradle-to-grave approach). For example, for the Teaching American 

History program, program officials said they provide guidance to 

applicants and grantees about how to develop performance measures 

related to program goals so that Education can obtain credible 

information on funded project outcomes from grantees. For competitive 

grant programs, officials in the relevant principal offices we spoke with 

said they review grantees’ annual performance reports to assess whether 

grantees’ activities are consistent with planned objectives, with Office of 

Innovation and Improvement officials saying they use a standard form to 

guide their review. 

Furthermore, staff from the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education visit each state at least once every 3 years to monitor state 

efforts to meet the teacher qualification requirements and states’ 

administration of ESEA Title II, Part A Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants. In 2008, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

conducted monitoring visits to 18 states and Puerto Rico, including 2 of 

our 3 site visit states and provided written monitoring reports on 

Education’s Web site about these states’ implementation of the ESEA 

teacher qualification requirements. For example, Education found 

instances in 2 of our site visit states of grants being awarded by state 

agencies for higher education that included an ineligible partnership. In 

2009 Education officials said they plan to conduct monitoring visits to 15 

other states through June as part of the department’s goal to monitor each 

state every 3 years. In addition, Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services officials said they use the results of telephone 

conversations with grantees, technical assistance meetings, and 

conferences to understand grantee activities. 

Offices Administering 

Education’s Teacher 

Improvement 

Programs Use a 

Variety of Methods to 

Target Monitoring, 

and Education Is 

Beginning to 

Implement 

Mechanisms Intended 

to Improve and 

Coordinate These 

Efforts 

In addition to these methods of targeting teacher quality program grantees, 

senior Education officials said that Education is beginning to implement 

risk management mechanisms to help program offices, including those 

administering teacher quality programs, better identify and target grantees 

not in compliance with grant requirements or not meeting performance 

goals. Senior Education officials said that applying risk management in 

Page 21 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Education is a relatively new endeavor and that responsibility rests with 

individual program offices for identifying risks confronting each program 

and for using risk indicators. These officials said Education’s risk 

management approaches will continue to evolve as processes mature and 

lessons are learned. 

Given that this endeavor is relatively new and that principal and program 

offices tailor their monitoring to the particular teacher quality program or 

grantee involved, we found that some of the program offices are further 

along in developing risk indicators than others. For example, the Office of 

Postsecondary Education has developed an electronic grants monitoring 

system using risk-based criteria for its competitive grants. Officials we 

spoke with in some of the other program offices that administer teacher 

quality programs had not developed formal risk-based criteria or 

electronic systems; however, as described previously, they have a means 

for identifying and targeting grantees that may be at risk of noncompliance 

with grant requirements or not meeting performance goals. 

Education is beginning to implement mechanisms intended to enhance as 

well as coordinate these efforts, such as sharing information about 

grantees. To coordinate a departmentwide risk-based management 

strategy, as well as assist program offices with their monitoring efforts, 

Education created the Risk Management Service. This office provides 

services to program offices, such as responding to their inquiries about 

policy interpretations and monitoring grants. Some program office 

officials we spoke with said that the Risk Management Service alerts them 

about grantees that are having problems managing other Education grants. 

As part of this effort, senior Education officials described plans for 

standardizing departmentwide systems for sharing information about 

grantees’ management of federal funds and performance. For example, 

Education is developing an automated process for enhancing its review of 

the findings of financial audits, called single audits, within their 

programs.20 As has been done in the past, this information is shared with 

teacher quality program managers and others in the department. 

Education officials we spoke with who are in several of the offices 

overseeing teacher quality programs said they review single-audit results, 

 

20All nonfederal entities that expend $500,000 or more in federal awards in a year are 

required to obtain an annual audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act, as amended, 

and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local 

Governments and Non-Profit Organizations.” 

Page 22 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

as required, to determine whether entities receiving an Education grant 

may have compliance or financial management issues. In addition, officials 

also said that Education is in the process of developing a departmentwide 

electronic tool to help program offices improve efforts to quantify, 

evaluate, and report on grantee risk. 

In addition to providing grants for teacher quality, Education has 

conducted evaluations for some of its 23 teacher quality programs, 

although little is known about the effectiveness of these programs. 

Moreover, Education awards grants to researchers for original research on 

teacher quality programs and interventions. Information from the 

evaluation and research is provided mainly through various vehicles on 

the Internet, and Education directs research and assistance to states and 

school districts through a system of regional and national providers. 

Education officials reported that these regional and national providers 

coordinate to provide this assistance to states and school districts. 

Education Conducts a 

Variety of Teacher 

Quality Improvement 

Studies and Provides 

Assistance to States 

and Districts through 

Regional and National 

Service Providers, 

Which Coordinate in 

Various Ways 

Education Conducts a 

Variety of Evaluations of 

Program Operations and 

Their Outcomes, but 

Evaluations Have Been 

Done or Are Under Way for 

about Two-fifths of the 

Teacher Quality Programs 

Education conducts various types of evaluations, such as process or 

implementation, outcome, and impact, which are intended to inform 

policymakers, program managers, and educators about program 

operations, how well programs are working, and which programs or 

interventions are having the greatest impact.21 Officials said that these 

evaluations are done in response to congressional mandates, requests 

from Education’s program offices or management, or proposals developed 

by the Institute of Education Sciences. 

 

21Process studies are conducted to evaluate the extent to which a program is operating as it 

was intended. These studies typically use methodologies such as case studies and surveys 

to assess whether program activities conform to statutory and regulatory requirements, 

program design, and professional standards or customer expectations. Outcome 

evaluations assess the extent to which a program achieves its outcome-oriented objectives, 

but may also assess program processes to understand how outcomes are produced. Impact 

evaluations use scientific research methods to assess the net effect of a program by 

comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened in the 

absence of the program. 

Page 23 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

While evaluations have been done or are under way for about two-fifths of 

the teacher quality programs, little is known about the extent to which 

most programs are achieving their desired results. Among the 23 programs 

focusing specifically on teacher quality, Education reported that it has 

awarded contracts, totaling about $36.5 million, to evaluate 9 federal 

programs, of which 6 have been completed (see table 5). Three of the 

completed evaluations—those for the Early Reading First program, 

Teacher Quality Partnership Grants, and one of two evaluations of the 

Mathematics and Science Partnerships program—provide information 

about how a program focused on teacher quality is directly affecting 

student achievement or how program outcomes could be indirectly 

affecting student achievement through their effect on teacher quality. For 

example, the impact evaluation of the Early Reading First program found 

that providing scientifically based materials and professional development 

to teachers had a statistically significant impact on children’s ability to 

recognize letters of the alphabet and to associate letters with their sounds, 

but it did not have a statistically discernable impact on other aspects of 

children’s reading or listening skills.22 The outcome evaluation of the 

Teacher Quality Partnership Grants found that funded partnerships that 

included colleges of education, schools of arts and sciences, and school 

districts led to changes in teacher preparation programs and the 

development of professional development programs for veteran teachers.23

The three remaining completed evaluations, which include a second 

evaluation for the Mathematics and Science Partnerships program, are 

process evaluations that provide information about program operations, 

but they do not directly address how the program is affecting student 

achievement through improved teacher quality. 

The three evaluations under way are impact or outcome evaluations. 

Education officials said that for the remaining 14 programs that do not 

have an evaluation under way, evaluations are not planned over the next 3 

years. Of these 14 programs, 2 were initially funded in fiscal year 2008 and 

another 1 in 2005, but the other 11 have been operating for at least 7 years 

and have never been evaluated. 

 

22U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Evaluation of 

Early Reading First, Final Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: May 2007). 

23U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 

Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation Through the Title II HEA 

Partnership Program: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: May 2006). 

Page 24 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

According to Education officials, some programs may be difficult to 

evaluate. In some cases federal funds are combined with state and local 

funds, such as under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (Title II, 

Part A) program, making it difficult to isolate the impact of federal funds. 

While the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program has not been 

evaluated, Education has examined the implementation of teacher quality 

provisions in the ESEA, primarily those related to the teacher qualification 

requirements. Moreover, Education officials said that several of the 

teacher quality programs are small in terms of their funding levels and as a 

result, have few program-associated funds for evaluation. However, as we 

have reported in the past, evaluations can be designed to consider the size 

of the program and the costs associated with measuring outcomes and 

collecting data.24

Table 5: Evaluations of the 23 Programs Specifically Focused on Teacher Quality 

Programs that have a completed evaluation Focus of evaluation 

Teaching American HistoryaTo identify (1) the types of activities that grantees implemented; (2) the content 

of the activities, including specific subjects and areas of American history on 

which projects focused; and (3) the characteristics and qualifications of 

teachers participating in the activities for the first 2 years of the program. 

Transition to TeachingbInterim report examines whether grantees are (1) increasing the pool of highly 

qualified teachers by recruiting nontraditional candidates into teaching; (2) 

bringing increased flexibility to the teacher preparation system by encouraging 

the creation and expansion of alternative routes or pathways to teacher 

certification and lowering barriers of time and cost of preparations while raising 

standards and program rigor; and (3) improving the retention rate of new 

teachers by supporting mentoring and induction programs, including a 3-year 

commitment to high-need schools in high-need districts. 

Teacher Quality Partnership Grants To determine if partnerships encouraged colleges and universities to (1) partner 

with and address the teacher preparation needs of high-need districts, (2) 

implement activities to improve the academic content knowledge of new or 

veteran teachers, (3) change student internship component associated with a 

partnership effort to improve teacher preparation, and (4) institute accountability 

for teacher preparation programs. 

Enhancing Education Through Technology To determine the role that the Enhancing Education Through Technology 

program plays, the state priorities and programs that it supports, and the 

relationship between state programs that the program supports, and the 

relationship between state educational technology activities and the goals and 

the purposes of ESEA. 

 

24GAO, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2005). 

Page 25 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Programs that have a completed evaluation Focus of evaluation 

Early Reading First To determine the effects of providing preschools with funds to provide teachers 

with focused professional development and scientifically based methods and 

materials on children’s language development and emergent literacy. 

Mathematics and Science Partnerships This evaluation describes the participants and activities of the Mathematics and 

Science Partnerships projects for 2003-2004 as they began the initial year of 

program implementation. 

A second evaluation summarizes information submitted by Mathematics and 

Science Partnership participants for 2005, which included (1) characteristics of 

the projects and participants, (2) professional development models and 

activities, and (3) outcomes of the programs. 

Programs currently being evaluated Focus of evaluation 

Striving Readers To examine the extent that (1) targeted interventions improve reading 

proficiency among struggling adolescent readers, and (2) schoolwide literacythroughout-the-curriculum interventions to improve reading proficiency among 

secondary students. 

Special Education-Personnel Development to 

Improve Services and Results for Children with 

Disabilities 

This evaluation will (1) examine the quality of materials developed and the 

services provided by national centers with funds provided by the program, and 

(2) examine the use of the grant funds, qualifications of the faculty hired, and 

the quality of the study materials created using the funds. Also it will estimate 

how many new students enrolled and how many completed the course. 

Teacher Incentive Fund To determine the degree of success and challenges to implementing the variety 

of pay-for-performance systems in the program and, given adequate 

implementation, any increases in effective principal and teacher recruitment 

and retention in high-need schools and hard-to-staff subjects. 

Programs that have not been evaluated 

English Language Acquisition National Professional 

Development Project 

Troops-to-Teachers 

Ready-to-Teach 

Territories and Freely Associated States Education 

Grant Program 

Special Education-State Personnel Development 

Grant Program 

Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: 

Baccalaureate STEM and Foreign Language 

Teacher Training 

Professional Development for Arts Educators 

School Leadership Program 

Indian Education Professional Development Grants 

Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing 

National Writing Project 

Page 26 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Programs that have not been evaluated

Academies for American History and Civics 

Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: 

Masters STEM and Foreign Language Teacher 

Training 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

a

Another evaluation of Teaching American History is currently under way. 

b

Transition to Teaching is an interim evaluation. 

In addition to the federal program evaluations shown in table 5, Education 

evaluates specific interventions intended to improve teacher quality. For 

example, Education has conducted or has under way evaluations on 

teacher induction programs, teacher preparation programs, and reading 

and mathematics professional development and software programs. 

Specifically, Education completed studies on the impact of professional 

development on teacher practices and student achievement in early 

reading as well as on teachers trained through different routes to 

certification.25 Moreover, Education and the National Academy of Sciences 

completed another study on the National Board for Professional 

Standards, which offers advanced-level certification to teachers.26 Further, 

Education officials said that they have 5 other studies under way, such as a 

study on moving high-performing teachers to low-performing schools. 

Interventions such as teacher induction programs and professional 

development are funded under a broad array of teacher quality programs, 

such as the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, the Teacher Quality 

Partnership Grants, the Transition to Teaching program, and Mathematics 

and Science Partnerships. Education officials overseeing evaluations said 

that to inform staff in program offices working on related issues, they 

provide briefings on the results of pertinent evaluations. These briefings 

include discussions about how the evaluation might be useful for program 

improvement. 

 

25U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, The Impact of 

Professional Development Models and Strategies on Teacher Practice and Student 

Achievement in Early Reading (Washington, D.C.: September 2008); and An Evaluation of 

Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification (Washington, D.C.: February 

2009).

26National Research Council, Assessing Accomplished Teaching: Advanced-Level 

Certification Programs (Washington, D.C.: 2008). 

Page 27 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

In addition to evaluating federal programs, Education also awards grants 

to researchers to conduct studies related to teacher quality ranging from 

assessing the effectiveness of reading and mathematics programs to 

measuring the relationship between teacher content knowledge and 

student achievement. For example, Education sponsors scientifically 

rigorous research on strategies for improving the performance of 

classroom teachers, 1 of 13 research areas established by Education’s 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES).27 Between 2003 and 2009, Education 

awarded almost $160 million in grants to research institutions for 69 

studies focused on teacher quality. (See app. IV more information about 

these studies.) 

Education Awards Grants 

to Researchers to Study 

Interventions Related to 

Teacher Quality to Inform 

Policymakers and 

Educators about Their 

Impact 

Education Provides 

Research and Related 

Assistance to States and 

School Districts through 

the Internet and a System 

of Regional and National 

Providers 

Education disseminates results from its research to educators and 

policymakers mainly through the Internet and a system of regional and 

national providers. Overall, while SEAs reported that the assistance was 

more useful than SAHEs reported, the results of our survey and 

discussions with state officials suggest that most of these services are 

targeted to SEAs and school districts rather than higher education entities. 

For example, one of the primary Internet vehicles for disseminating 

research—the What Works Clearinghouse—was identified by officials in 

24 of the 48 SEAs as moderately to extremely useful, but only by officials 

in 15 of the 47 SAHEs that responded to our survey as moderately to 

extremely useful, as shown in figure 3. Overseen by IES, the What Works 

Clearinghouse provides educators, policymakers, researchers, and other 

users with information on what IES considers the best evidence on the 

effectiveness of specific interventions. For example, IES officials told us 

that the results of research are synthesized into Practice Guides to make 

them more usable to practitioners. Current Practice Guides provide 

information in areas such as reducing behavior problems in the classroom 

and encouraging girls in math and science.28

 

27IES also includes the National Center for Education Statistics, which is the primary 

federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on the condition of education in 

the United States and other nations. IES maintains large data sets, such as the Schools and 

Staffing Survey, which are available to the public and researchers. 

28Research information is also provided in other products, including Topic Reports, which 

compile information from intervention reports in specific topics such as reading and 

mathematics, and Intervention Reports, which examine all studies for a specific 

intervention within a topic area, rating each study based on evidence standards. 

Page 28 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Figure 3: SEA and SAHE Views of the Usefulness of Education Assistance Vary 

SAHE

SEA

Institute of Education 

Sciences Studies

Teacher Quality 

Content Center

Regional Comprehensive 

Centers

Regional Educational 

Laboratories

Doing What Works

What Works

Clearinghouse

Number of respondents

Source: GAO surveys.

Extremely/very/moderately useful Slightly/not useful Not applicable/no opinion/or no basis to judge

24 17

24

28

34

13

27

10

20

36

37

23

29

15

16

10

30

17

33

6

21

5

17

14

7

3

2

4

2

6

4

7

3

3

5

7

Note: In some cases, respondents do not total 48 for the SEAs and 47 for the SAHEs because not all 

SEA and SAHE officials responding to the surveys answered every question. 

Education also disseminates research through another Internet vehicle, 

the Doing What Works Web site, which is intended to help teachers make 

use of effective teaching practices. Most of the content of Doing What 

Works is based on information provided through the What Works 

Clearinghouse, such as classroom practices that are distilled from 

research contained in the Practice Guides; the site is overseen by the 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Only 16 of the 48 

SEA and 10 of 47 SAHE officials who responded to our respective surveys 

identified the Doing What Works Internet site as moderately to extremely 

useful. According to an Education official, these views may reflect the fact 

that the site is relatively new, and Education has not widely publicized it. 

Education provides research and research-related assistance on teacher 

quality through regional and national service providers, which work 

Page 29 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

directly with states and school districts. Regional services are provided 

through the 10 Regional Educational Laboratories (REL) and 16 Regional 

Comprehensive Centers; national services are provided through the 

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. The RELs provide 

policymakers and educators with technical assistance, training, and 

research that are based on findings from scientifically valid research. The 

RELs distill and explain research as well as conduct research to identify 

effective programs and to address classroom issues facing the states, 

school districts, schools, and policymakers within their respective 

regions.29 Among the 48 SEA officials who responded to our survey, 30 

reported that the RELs are moderately to extremely useful, and 17 of the 

47 SAHE officials who responded to our survey reported that the RELs are 

moderately to extremely useful. 

Education’s 16 Regional Comprehensive Centers assist SEAs within their 

regions to implement ESEA and to build SEA capacity to help their 

districts and schools meet student achievement goals. Unlike the RELs, 

the Regional Comprehensive Centers do not conduct research, but they do 

identify and synthesize existing research to help SEA officials understand 

what information is available to improve their schools and student 

achievement, according to Education officials. Among the 48 SEA officials 

who responded to our survey, 33 reported Regional Comprehensive 

Centers’ assistance as moderately to extremely useful, while only 6 of the 

47 SAHE officials who responded to our survey said that the Regional 

Comprehensive Centers were moderately to extremely useful. 

The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (one of five 

National Content Centers supported by the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education) assists the 16 Regional Comprehensive Centers by 

providing technical assistance in conjunction with their work with the 

states.30 Like the Regional Comprehensive Centers, the National 

Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality does not conduct original 

research but provides technical assistance as well as synthesizes and 

disseminates scientifically based research on effective practice and 

research-based products on teacher quality. 

 

29REL research that meet IES standards is presented on the What Works Clearinghouse. 

30Each of the five National Content Centers focuses on and provides expertise, analysis, 

and research in one of the following areas: accountability, instruction, teacher quality, 

innovation and improvement, or high schools. 

Page 30 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Regional and national providers coordinate among themselves and with 

each other to assist states and districts to improve teacher quality. For 

example, REL officials said that RELs coordinate among themselves to 

prevent unnecessary duplication of activities among the regions, as 

required by their funding agreements with Education. The REL MidAtlantic is responsible for ensuring that there is coordination among the 10 

RELs. In this role, it manages a REL Web site, which includes information 

on past and ongoing projects, and it holds regular meetings among the 

RELs. Regional Comprehensive Center officials also reported that they 

share information among themselves but on a more informal basis than 

the RELs.31 One comprehensive center director reported that the 

comprehensive center network has several mechanisms for discussing 

work with states, including semiannual director meetings and conferences 

that are attended by the staff and directors from the various Regional 

Comprehensive Centers. 

Regional and National 

Providers Coordinate in 

Various Ways to Assist 

States and Districts 

RELs, Regional Comprehensive Centers, and the National Comprehensive 

Center on Teacher Quality also coordinate with each other as needed. For 

example, an official with the National Comprehensive Center on Teacher 

Quality told us that officials often coordinate with the Regional 

Comprehensive Centers and the SEAs to provide expertise on teacher 

quality issues. In addition, Education officials said that RELs and the 

Regional Comprehensive Centers coordinate as needed to address 

common concerns as well. For example, in one region the Regional 

Comprehensive Center brought together the REL and the National 

Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality to conduct a study of the 

distribution of highly qualified teachers in one state, as well as the 

policies, practices, and conditions that affect that distribution. In this 

effort, the REL used its expertise in research to provide support on 

research design and data analysis; the National Comprehensive Center for 

Teacher Quality, while not involved directly with the research, developed 

surveys and interview protocols for the study; and the Regional 

Comprehensive Center coordinated the project and piloted the data 

collection instruments. 

 

31The Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-279, Title II) requires 

that each comprehensive center coordinate its activities, collaborate, and regularly 

exchange information with the REL in the region in which the center is located as well as 

with other technical assistance providers in the region. 

Page 31 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

States Face Several 

Challenges in 

Collaborating 

Internally to Improve 

Teacher Quality; 

Education Provides 

Some Assistance to 

Help Address These 

Challenges 

State agency officials cited limited resources and incompatible data 

systems as the greatest challenges to their collaborative efforts within the 

state to improve teacher quality. Resistance to change, sustained 

commitment, and state governance structure also affected their efforts to 

collaborate. While state officials reported some challenges, they also 

reported successes in their efforts to collaborate within their states across 

a wide array of teacher quality areas. Nevertheless, they also cite a need 

for more collaboration, specifically to address training for existing 

teachers. To help address some of these challenges, Education provides 

financial support and other forms of assistance to some states. 

State Officials Cite Limited 

Funding, Available Staff 

and Time, as well as 

Incompatible K-12 and 

Postsecondary Data 

Systems, as the Greatest 

Challenges, among Other 

Factors 

State officials reported through our surveys (see fig. 4) and state site visits 

that state budget cuts and reduced staff levels at their agencies inhibit 

teacher quality collaborative efforts. Collaborative efforts require a 

commitment of resources, staff, and time, and state officials report that 

reduced staffing levels have limited the available time that they can 

commit to collaborating, and it is difficult to be continuously involved. 

One state official told us that staff are focused on fulfilling state and 

federal requirements and have little time to address other teacher quality 

initiatives. 

Page 32 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Figure 4: Challenges to Collaborative Efforts within States to Improve Teacher Quality 

Very great or great challenge Moderate or some challenge No challenge at all

Source: GAO survey.

28

SEA

SAHE

0

0

2

2

1

1

1

3

Level of funding

Amount of time allotted

given other priorities

Level of staffing or

allocation of human resources

Separate data systems that

do not communicate with each other

Level of resistance to change

shown by stakeholders

Level of sustained interest

or commitment on the part of

institutional partners

Separate PK-12 and higher education

state governance systems

30

33

31

31

30

28

13

13

8

8

9

17

31

17

11

10

12

13

16

15

33

23

1

5

6

11

5

7

32

23

32

21

16

Number of survey respondents

Note: In some cases, respondents do not total 48 for the SEAs and 47 for the SAHEs because not all 

SEA and SAHE officials responding to the surveys answered every question. 

State officials also reported that incompatible data systems across the 

educational information system, such as those containing student-level, 

teacher-level, and postsecondary data, pose challenges to collaboration on 

teacher quality efforts. State officials said that some of their objectives for 

data systems are to link student and teacher data, or to link data from the 

K-12 education system and the postsecondary education system, to inform 

and measure teacher quality policy efforts. For example, state officials and 

experts we spoke with said longitudinal data systems can be used to 

measure teacher effectiveness through value-added models that estimate 

existing teachers’ contributions to student learning, and that these models 

may also allow states to determine which teacher preparation programs 

Page 33 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

produce graduates whose students have the strongest academic growth. 

For example, Louisiana officials said that although it has taken several 

years, they have developed a value-added model, based on longitudinal 

data, that allows them to evaluate the extent to which graduates from 

teacher preparation programs improve student learning in the classroom. 

However, experts, a state official, and an Education report cautioned 

about using student and teacher data in value-added models for reasons 

such as methodological concerns and an overemphasis on student test 

scores to the exclusion of other teacher factors that may positively affect 

students and schools. Moreover, senior officials from Education and state 

agencies we spoke with said that some key education stakeholders have 

reservations about linking student and teacher data to measure teacher 

effectiveness and/or the implications for privacy. Nevertheless, several 

states reported that statewide longitudinal data for the K-12 through 

higher education systems can increase collaboration by enhancing 

feedback loops between the K-12 and higher education systems. This 

information could, for example, help state agencies address professional 

development for teachers in the classroom as well as the effectiveness of 

teacher preparation programs for prospective teachers. 

In addition to citing limited resources and incompatible data systems, 

state agency officials reported that several other factors, such as 

resistance to change, sustaining commitment, and state governance 

structures pose challenges to their collaborative efforts to improve teacher 

quality in their states. For example, state officials reported that different 

agencies and institutions are resistant to change as a result of long-held 

beliefs or difficulty in valuing new approaches to improving teacher 

quality. In one instance, state officials also told us that it is hard to 

maintain a sustained commitment to address teacher preparation issues 

because of the volume of state initiatives focused on improving student 

achievement. Another state official reported that the K-12 and 

postsecondary systems have separate governance systems, a factor that, 

given the different missions of each agency, limits how the two interact on 

education policy. Other state officials said the number of entities playing a 

role in teacher quality policy limits the state agencies’ ability to collaborate 

on statewide teacher quality initiatives because the state agency must 

facilitate feedback from a multitude of stakeholders, which can be a time 

consuming process. 

Although states face challenges to collaboration, state officials responding 

to our surveys and during site visits stressed the importance of these 

efforts and said that more collaboration is needed, especially to improve 

professional development training for existing teachers. Our survey results 

Page 34 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

illustrate that states’ teacher quality policy efforts cut across many 

interrelated areas within the K-12 and postsecondary systems, such as 

preservice preparation, recruitment, mentoring and induction, teacher 

assessments for licensure/certification, and continued learning for veteran 

teachers. State officials reported that improving teacher quality is best 

achieved through several interrelated initiatives that involve the various 

stakeholders within the two systems. In our survey, 22 of 48 SEA officials 

and 34 of 47 SAHE officials cited a great to very great need for more 

collaboration on teacher quality issues. Although state officials who 

provided written responses cited a range of teacher quality issues for 

which more collaboration was needed, including teacher preparation and 

retention, 16 SEA officials and 21 SAHE officials specifically cited training 

for existing teachers as a need. 

In an effort to further enhance collaboration within the education system, 

several states have established coordinating bodies to address state 

education issues, including teacher quality improvement. According to our 

survey results, these coordinating bodies (often referred to as P-16 or P-20 

bodies)—which are intended to create a seamless education system from 

prekindergarten through the postsecondary system through 

comprehensive education initiatives—have been generally effective at 

fostering an integrated approach to teacher quality within states that 

reported having a coordinating body. For example, one state official 

reported that the state coordinating body facilitates open communication 

among state agencies. Nevertheless, state officials reported through our 

surveys that these coordinating bodies also face challenges to enhancing 

collaboration, including having limited resources and needing to set 

priorities and allocate roles and responsibilities. In their review of state 

coordinating bodies, the Education Commission of the States reported 

that for these coordinating bodies to be successful, they must commit to 

long-term reform, include representatives from key stakeholder groups, 

coordinate initiatives at the state level, and integrate reform into other 

ongoing efforts.32

 

32Carl Krueger, The Progress of P-16 Collaboration in the States (Denver, Colo.: Education 

Commission of the States, April 2006). 

Page 35 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

Education administers a grant program designed to help states develop 

longitudinal data systems and provides some assistance related to these 

efforts.33 The State Longitudinal Data Systems grant program is aimed at 

enhancing SEAs’ ability to develop statewide longitudinal data systems. 

These systems are intended to efficiently manage and analyze education 

data (including individual student records) to address federal reporting, 

accountability, and other requirements such as those related to ESEA. One 

of the program’s allowable activities is to expand existing data systems to 

include teacher data and to link K-12 and higher education data systems. 

(As shown in app. III, the State Longitudinal Data Systems grant program 

is 1 of 33 programs that allow or require portions of funding to be used for 

teacher quality activities, but does so in pursuit of other program purposes 

or goals.) In our review of applications of states that received grant 

awards in 2006 or 2007, we found that most states are seeking to link 

student and teacher data or to link the K-12 and higher education data 

systems. For fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2009, 41 states and the District of 

Columbia were awarded at least one grant ranging from about $1.5 million 

to $9.0 million.34 In fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated $65 million to 

support the State Longitudinal Data Systems grant program, about a $17 

million increase over the fiscal year 2008 level. 

Education Provides Some 

Financial Support and 

Other Assistance That May 

Help Address StateReported Challenges as 

well as Enhance Other 

Collaborative Efforts, 

Especially for Local-Level 

Activities 

Establishing a longitudinal data system that links prekindergarten through 

12th grade and higher education data systems is one of the assurances that 

states must make to be eligible to receive their portion of the Recovery 

Act’s State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.35 Specifically, Education is asking 

states to report their progress toward implementing a statewide data 

system that includes the 12 elements described in the America 

COMPETES Act (Pub. L. No. 110-69), one of which is the matching of 

student data with individual teacher data. Education has provided 

preliminary guidance on the specific information that states must provide 

 

33Education also provides some funding for the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in 

Education Research (CALDER), housed at the Urban Institute. CALDER’s mission is to 

inform education policy development through analyses of data on individual students and 

teachers over time. 

34According to Education, new grant awards were not made in fiscal year 2008. Most of the 

funding available in fiscal year 2008 supported 13 continuation awards; the remainder was 

combined with fiscal year 2009 funding for a new competition. In fiscal year 2009, the 12 

states that were awarded a second grant were Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 

35The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is designed, in part, to help stabilize state and local 

budgets to minimize and avoid reductions in education and other essential services. 

Page 36 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

in their applications for funding through the State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund.36 Another $250 million is provided for the State Longitudinal Data 

Systems grant program in the Recovery Act that could help states defray 

costs associated with these efforts. 

Education also facilitates information sharing and provides assistance 

with and research results on state data systems to state officials through 

technical assistance related to the State Longitudinal Data Systems grant 

program as well as through a network of regional and national providers 

that we described previously. Education’s Web site contains information 

on a variety of topics related to data system development and 

management. Further, Education has hosted grantee conferences that 

have included panels on topics ranging from data privacy to how states 

can leverage one another’s experiences with these data systems. In 

addition, a 2007 REL Midwest report outlined how states within its region 

use data systems and the promising practices of and challenges 

confronting these states, concluding that opportunities exist to capitalize 

on states’ commitment to developing longitudinal data systems by thinking 

about these issues more comprehensively and systematically.37 In March 

2009, the REL Midwest and National Comprehensive Center on Teacher 

Quality cosponsored a live webcast to discuss and disseminate ongoing 

research on utilizing data systems in teacher evaluation models. In 

addition to grant funds provided by the State Longitudinal Data System 

Grant program, state officials told us that conferences, training, and 

technical assistance from the REL network would assist states in 

addressing their data system challenges. 

In addition to providing the specific funding and assistance for data 

systems, Education also provides funding to support partnerships within 

states to address teacher quality. Some of these programs are intended to 

support accountability for teacher preparation programs at institutions of 

 

36Included in this guidance is information on specific data metrics that states would use to 

make transparent their status in the education reform areas. The data metrics include 

teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all schools have highly qualified teachers, higher 

standards and rigorous assessments that will improve both teaching and learning, and 

better information to educators and the public to address the individual needs of students 

and improve teacher performance. For each metric, a state would need to demonstrate that 

it collects the required data and that it will make the data easily accessible to the public. 

37Sarah-Kathryn McDonald, Jolynne Andal, Kevin Brown, and Barbara Schneider, Getting 

the Evidence for Evidence-based Initiatives: How the Midwest States Use Data Systems 

to Improve Education Processes and Outcomes (Washington, D.C.: REL Midwest, 2007). 

Page 37 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

higher education or to improve teacher preparation programs by requiring 

partnerships, mainly between school districts and institutions of higher 

education. Of the 23 programs directed at improving teacher quality that 

we discussed previously, 8 fund projects specifically requiring 

partnerships. For example, according to state and university officials in 

New Jersey, Teacher Quality Enhancement grants have funded efforts to 

recruit high school students who are interested in pursing teaching in highneed school districts and designing teacher preparation programs for 

middle school students based on strong content knowledge. These types 

of efforts are accomplished through consortia, such as partnerships among 

universities and their respective teacher preparation programs and liberal 

arts and sciences departments as well as school districts. State and 

university officials in our site visit states said that these partnership grants 

generally facilitate useful collaboration among the grant partners. 

However, one state official told us that outside of federal- and state-funded 

partnerships between some school districts and institutions of higher 

education, there are limited opportunities for collaboration between K-12 

and higher education. These officials also said the partnerships are 

sometimes difficult to sustain after the grants have expired. Moreover, 

another state official and an expert we spoke with explained that these 

partnership grants do not support a systemic collaboration between the K12 and higher education systems because the grants involve only a select 

few institutions in partnerships. 

Providing all children with qualified teachers is a focus of federal policy, 

and this goal is reflected in Education’s strategic and annual performance 

plans. To help accomplish this goal, Education distributes billions of 

federal dollars and provides research and other assistance for teacher 

quality activities through multiple offices and statutorily authorized 

programs. While Education has engaged in some coordination to share 

information and expertise within the department, and from time to time 

has established and completed broader collaborative efforts, coordination 

among all the relevant offices does not occur on a regular basis. 

Conclusion 

The success of Education’s mission and the achievement of its goals for 

improving teacher quality and ultimately for increasing student 

achievement depend in part on how well it manages its wide array of 

programs and initiatives with regard to funding, assistance, and other 

priorities, as well as its evaluation and research efforts. Also, the Recovery 

Act, with its large infusion of onetime funds, as well as its provisions 

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

make improvements in assessing teacher effectiveness and in distributing 

Page 38 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

qualified and effective teachers equitably, creates an opportunity for the 

department to leverage new resources with existing structures in a way to 

improve teacher quality and effectiveness. However, this wide array of 

programs, initiatives, and structures also creates a challenge for the 

department. In the absence of a written departmentwide strategy for 

integrating its wide array of teacher quality programs and efforts, 

Education’s offices may not be aligned in their actions to achieve 

Education’s long-term goal of improving teacher quality. A departmental 

strategy for collaboration could help states overcome their barriers to 

improving teacher quality through facilitating compatible data systems as 

well as encouraging systemic collaboration between state K-12 and higher 

education institutions and detailing the role each plays in the success of 

the other. Without clearly articulated strategies and sustained 

collaborative activities, Education may be missing important opportunities 

to leverage its financial and other resources, align its activities and 

processes, as well as develop joint strategies to assist states, districts, and 

institutions of higher education in improving teacher quality. 

To ensure that departmental goals to improve teacher quality are achieved 

and that the department’s many related efforts are mutually reinforcing, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Education establish and implement a 

strategy for sustained coordination among existing departmental offices 

and programs. A key purpose of this coordination would be to facilitate 

information and resource sharing as well as strengthening linkages among 

teacher quality improvement efforts to help states, school districts, and 

institutions of higher education in their initiatives to improve teacher 

quality. 

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

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

Education agreed that coordination is beneficial, but it favors short-term 

coordination focused on discrete issues or problems. 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 coordinates its approach to teacher quality and the way 

states and school districts promote teacher quality. Education officials 

pointed out that these efforts do not always prove useful and said that 

efforts to coordinate program implementation cannot fully eliminate 

barriers to program alignment. 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 39 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

While we agree with Education that these efforts have not always been 

useful and they face numerous barriers and challenges, we nonetheless 

believe that it is important for the department to develop a strategy for 

sustained coordination. As it develops a coordination strategy, Education 

should use its knowledge of past efforts and existing barriers to put in 

place the conditions necessary for addressing these and other challenges. 

For example, in their comments Education officials highlighted a barrier 

from this report of some teacher quality programs having inconsistent 

legislative definitions and requirements. As part of establishing and 

implementing a strategy for sustained coordination, Education could 

consider identifying these specific definitional barriers and others and 

develop a strategy for addressing them. Successful strategic and annual 

planning involve identifying goals and challenges facing an agency and 

detailing how an agency intends to achieve these goals and address these 

challenges. As we mention in the report, these efforts should include 

information on how program officials will coordinate and plan 

crosscutting efforts with other related programs. We encourage Education 

to formalize its coordination efforts by incorporating them into its 

planning efforts. Because responsibilities for improving teacher quality are 

shared among multiple offices, we believe taking a more systematic 

approach than what has occurred will ensure that different offices 

routinely become involved in sharing information and resources as well as 

facilitating linkages among teacher quality improvement efforts. 

We acknowledged Education’s effort to bring together different offices to 

work together on discrete issues or problems related to teacher quality 

and we modified the report to reflect Education’s recent coordination 

effort to address the Recovery Act requirements related to teachers. 

Education also provided technical comments that we incorporated into 

the report as appropriate. 

Page 40 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
 

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

Sincerely yours, 

Cornelia M. Ashby 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security 

Page 41 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of methods. To 

document the extent to which Education funds and coordinates teacher 

quality programs, we interviewed Education officials as well as reviewed 

Education documents and relevant laws. To understand how Education 

funds and supports research efforts to improve teacher quality, we 

interviewed officials from a selection of relevant Education-funded 

research and related assistance providers and at the regional and national 

levels. To understand the challenges to collaboration within states, we 

conducted two national surveys—one was sent to state educational 

agency (SEA) officials in the 50 states and the District of Columbia and a 

separate survey was sent to state agency for higher education (SAHE) 

officials in 48 states plus the District of Columbia.1

 We did not send a 

SAHE survey to New York or Michigan because (1) in New York the 

executive official of higher education is also responsible for directing 

kindergarten through 12th grade education and (2) in Michigan there is no 

state agency or officer with governance authority over higher education. In 

addition, we conducted site visits in 3 states to understand further the 

state perspective as well as that of school districts and institutions of 

higher education. In addition, we interviewed national experts on the 

various areas of teacher quality. We conducted our work between 

February 2008 and 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. 

 

1

Because of differences in higher education governance among states, state agencies for 

higher education include offices, commissions, boards, committees, departments, or 

organizations with governing authority over higher education in the state. 

Page 42 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine the extent that Education funds and coordinates teacher 

quality programs, we first identified relevant programs from the Guide to 

U.S. Department of Education Programs 2008 and classified these 

programs into two groups based on these differences:2

 (1) programs 

designed to support teacher quality improvement, and (2) programs that 

may support teacher quality improvement but do so in pursuit of other 

goals or purposes. For the first group, or “primary programs,” we reviewed 

the program description for each program, identifying those with a 

purpose of improving teaching in the classroom for elementary and 

secondary schools. The description statement of these programs included 

terms such as professional development, teacher training, teacher 

preparation, teacher retention, teacher certification, improving teaching 

through scientifically based research and curriculum development. In 

addition, we identified the second group of programs—which have a 

purpose other than improving teacher quality—through a review of the 

descriptions of the types of projects funded in Education’s Program Guide 

to determine that training teachers or improving instructional programs 

was an allowable activity. After identifying the respective group of 

programs, Education officials reviewed the list of programs to verify that 

we had identified the relevant programs and categorized each program 

correctly. To understand Education’s efforts and requirements for 

coordinating the 23 programs that we identified as primarily focusing on 

teacher quality, we reviewed relevant federal laws, performance and 

accountability reports, and other documentation to identify requirements 

for coordinating its programs. In addition, we interviewed officials for the 

offices that oversee these programs to determine whether and how they 

coordinate their programs to improve teacher quality. These interviews 

included officials from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 

the Office of Innovation and Improvement, the Office of Postsecondary 

Education, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

and the Office of English Language Acquisition. We also interviewed 

officials in Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and reviewed 

relevant OIG reports on Education’s efforts to coordinate programs. 

Objectives 1 and 2: 

Extent of Education 

Funding and 

Coordination of 

Teacher Quality 

Programs as well as 

Education’s 

Monitoring of these 

Programs 

To understand how Education monitors states and districts that receive 

formula and discretionary grants on teacher quality we reviewed relevant 

 

2

This guide is a subset of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, which includes the 

federal programs from all federal agencies. We updated fiscal year 2008 funding levels with 

fiscal year 2009 funding levels based on information in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act, Education budget documents, and a review of these figures by 

Education officials. 

Page 43 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

federal laws, nonregulatory guidance, policy and procedure manuals, 

monitoring checklists, and monitoring reports or letters to grantees, as 

well as outside evaluations or audits such as OIG and GAO reports. In 

addition, to determine the process and procedures for monitoring these 

programs, we conducted interviews with the relevant officials from each 

of the five program offices overseeing each of these programs, including 

officials from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of 

Innovation and Improvement, Office of Postsecondary Education, and 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services as well as OIG, 

and the Office of Risk Management Service in the Secretary of Education’s 

office. Finally, to gather information about Education’s monitoring, we 

interviewed state and district officials during our site visits. 

To gather information on Education’s evaluation of federal programs, 

research on teacher quality, and research-related assistance provided to 

states and districts, we interviewed relevant Education officials as well as 

state and district officials during our site visits, and reviewed documents 

and responses to questions on research-related assistance in the survey. 

To obtain information on Education’s evaluation and research efforts as 

well as dissemination practices, we interviewed relevant officials from 

Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, and the Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy 

Development, as well as submitted written follow-up questions to these 

offices. In addition, we reviewed documented information available on the 

evaluations conducted on federal programs on teacher quality and on 

completed and ongoing research on teacher quality practices and 

interventions. To learn about the research-related assistance provided 

directly to states, we interviewed officials from the three Regional 

Educational Laboratories and Regional Comprehensive Centers that 

provide assistance to our three site visit states.3

 We also interviewed 

officials from the National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality. In 

addition, during our site visits we asked state and district officials about 

the kinds of assistance that they receive directly from Education, the 

Regional Educational Laboratories, Regional Comprehensive Centers, and 

the National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality. Finally, in our 

Objective 3: 

Evaluation and 

Research as well as 

Related Assistance 

Pertaining to Teacher 

Quality 

 

3

The Regional Educational Laboratories included the Northwest Regional Educational 

Laboratory, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory, and the Southwest Regional 

Educational Laboratory; the Regional Comprehensive Centers included the Northwest 

Regional Comprehensive Center, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Comprehensive Center, and the 

Southeast Regional Comprehensive Center. 

Page 44 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

surveys, we asked state respondents about the usefulness of the Regional 

Educational Laboratories, the Regional Comprehensive Centers, the 

National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality, the Institute of 

Education Sciences studies, as well as the What Works Clearinghouse and 

Doing What Works Internet sites. 

To understand the challenges facing state agencies’ in their efforts to 

collaborate within their states on efforts to improve teacher quality, we 

used two approaches—two state surveys and site visits to three states. 

First we designed and administered two identical Web-based surveys—

one that was sent to SEA officials in all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia and a second to SAHE officials in 48 states and the District of 

Columbia. We did not send a SAHE survey to New York or Michigan 

because (1) in New York the executive official of higher education is also 

responsible for directing kindergarten through 12th grade education and 

(2) in Michigan there is no state agency or officer with governance 

authority over higher education. The surveys were conducted between 

August and November 2008. Questionnaires were completed by SEA 

officials in 48 states for a response rate of 94 percent, and SAHE officials 

in 47 states for a response rate of 96 percent. 

Objective 4: 

Challenges to 

Collaboration within 

States and Education 

Efforts to Address 

these Challenges 

The surveys posed a combination of questions that allowed for openended and closed-ended responses. They included questions about state 

efforts including (1) state agency initiatives across a wide range of teacher 

quality areas, (2) state agencies’ collaborative activities within their state, 

(3) the role of a state coordinating body (where applicable) in teacher 

quality initiatives, and (4) the usefulness of grant funds and technical 

assistance provided by Education. 

The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic 

questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. We sent e-mail 

notifications to all 51 SEA officials and 49 SAHE officials beginning on 

September 15, 2008. To encourage respondents to complete the 

questionnaire, we sent an e-mail message to prompt each nonrespondent 

each week after the initial e-mail, on September 22, 2008, and October 1, 

2008. We also contacted officials by telephone to further increase our 

response rate. We closed both surveys on November 23, 2008. 

Some of the survey questions were open-ended, allowing respondents an 

opportunity to provide thoughts and opinions in their own words. To 

categorize and summarize these responses, we performed a systematic 

content analysis of a select number of open-ended questions. Two GAO 

Page 45 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

staff independently coded the responses. All initial disagreements 

regarding placement into categories were discussed and reconciled. 

Agreement regarding each placement was reached again between at least 

two analysts. The numbers of responses in each content category were 

then summarized and tallied. 

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret 

questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. We took a 

number of steps to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, a social 

science survey specialist designed the questionnaires in collaboration with 

GAO staff with subject matter expertise. During survey development, we 

received feedback from three external peer reviewers and Education 

officials. The questionnaires also underwent a peer review by a second 

GAO survey specialist. Each draft instrument was then pretested two 

times with appropriate officials in New Mexico, Wisconsin, and West 

Virginia to ensure that the questions and information provided to 

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

pretesting took place during July and August 2008. Since these were Webbased surveys, respondents entered their answers directly into electronic 

questionnaires. This eliminated the need to have data keyed into 

databases, thus removing an additional source of error. Finally, to further 

minimize errors, computer programs used to analyze the survey data were 

independently verified by a second GAO data analyst to ensure the 

accuracy of this work. 

While we did not fully validate specific information that states reported 

through our survey, we took several steps to ensure that the information 

was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. For example, we 

contacted state officials via phone and e-mail to follow up on obvious 

inconsistencies, errors, or incomplete answers. We also performed 

computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses and other 

indications of error. On the basis of our checks, we believe our survey data 

are sufficient for the purposes of this report. The surveys and a complete 

tabulation of aggregated results can be viewed at GAO-09-594SP. 

We also conducted site visits to three states—Louisiana, New Jersey, and 

Oregon. These states were selected based on their having initiatives that 

focus on teacher quality, such as coordinating bodies that are intended to 

Page 46 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

bridge the K-12 and higher education systems,4 and on diversity in terms of 

geographic location, population, and amount of federal teacher quality 

program funding. In each state we met with SEA and SAHE officials, and 

to understand the local perspective, we met with officials in at least one 

school district and two universities. In addition, we interviewed experts on 

teacher quality, including those at the American Institutes for Research, 

Education Trust, Congressional Research Service, and the University of 

Pennsylvania. We also reviewed several studies on teacher quality funding 

and activities. 

 

4

Coordinating bodies work to integrate a student’s education from kindergarten through a 

four-year college degree by coordinating statewide education initiatives and reforms. 

Examples of such coordinating bodies include what are commonly referred to as P-16/20 

councils, though some states refer to them differently (e.g., commissions, roundtables, 

committees, initiatives, etc.). On the basis of our review of the literature, we found that a 

large number of these bodies address some aspect of teacher quality. 

Page 47 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix II: Primary Programs: Twenty-three 

Programs Providing Funding Specifically to 

Improve the Quality of Teachers 

Program name Grant design Eligible recipients Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations 

(Dollars in 

thousands)

Elementary and 

Secondary 

Education Act 

Improving Teacher 

Quality State Grants 

(also known as Title 

II, Part A) 

Formula Awards made to state educational 

agencies (SEA) that, in turn, make 

formula subgrants to school districts. 

State agencies for higher education 

(SAHE) also receive a formula grant 

that, in turn, is awarded 

competitively to partnerships that 

must include at least one institution 

of higher education (IHE) and its 

division that prepares teachers and 

principals, a school of arts and 

sciences, and a high-need school 

district. 

To increase academic 

achievement by improving 

teacher and principal quality. 

$2,947,749

Enhancing 

Education Through 

Technology 

Program 

Formula SEAs. To improve student achievement 

through use of technology in 

elementary and secondary 

schools and to help all students 

become technologically literate 

by the end of the eighth grade 

and, through the integration of 

technology with both teacher 

training and curriculum 

development, establishing 

research-based instructional 

methods that can be widely 

implemented. 

269,872

Mathematics and 

Science 

Partnerships 

Formula Awards are made to SEAs. 

Partnerships of school districts and 

IHEs may apply to states for 

subgrants. Partnership must include, 

at a minimum, an engineering, 

mathematics, or science department 

of an IHE, and a high-need school 

district. 

To increase the academic 

achievement of students in 

mathematics and science by 

enhancing the content 

knowledge, teaching skills, and 

instruction practices of 

classroom teachers. 

178,978

Teaching American 

History 

Competitive School districts applying in 

partnership with one or more of the 

following: IHEs, nonprofit history or 

humanities organizations, libraries, 

or museums. 

To raise student achievement by 

improving teachers’ knowledge 

and understanding of and 

appreciation for traditional U.S. 

history. 

118,952

Appendix II: Primary Programs: Twenty-three 

Programs Providing Funding Specifically to 

Improve the Quality of Teachers 

Page 48 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality 
Appendix II: Primary Programs: Twenty-three 

Programs Providing Funding Specifically to 

Improve the Quality of Teachers 

Program name Grant design Eligible recipients Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations 

(Dollars in 

thousands)

Early Reading First Competitive School districts eligible for a 

Reading First subgrant and public or 

private organizations or agencies 

located in a community served by an 

eligible district may apply. 

Supports local efforts to enhance 

the early language, literacy, and 

prereading development of 

preschool-age children, 

particularly those from lowincome families, through 

strategies and professional 

development that are based on 

scientifically based reading 

research. 

112,549

Teacher Incentive 

Fund 

Competitive School districts, including charter 

schools that are districts in their 

state, SEAs, or partnerships of (1) a 

district, SEA, or both, and (2) at least 

one nonprofit organization may 

apply. 

To support efforts to develop and 

implement performance-based 

teacher and principal 

compensation systems in highneed schools. 

97,270a

Transition to 

Teaching 

Competitive High-need school districts, SEAs, 

for-profit or nonprofit organizations, 

IHEs, regional consortia of SEAs, or 

consortia of high-need districts may 

apply. IHEs, for-profits, and 

nonprofits must be in partnership 

with a high-need district or an SEA. 

To support the recruitment and 

retention of highly qualified midcareer professionals, including 

qualified paraprofessionals, and 

recent college graduates who 

have not majored in education to 

teach in high-need schools and 

districts through the development 

of new or enhanced alternative 

routes to certification. 

43,707

English Language 

Acquisition National 

Professional 

Development 

Project 

Competitive IHEs as well as consortia of these 

institutions and SEAs or school 

districts. 

To support professional 

development activities for 

education personnel working 

with English language learners. 

41,800

Page 49 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix II: Primary Programs: Twenty-three 

Programs Providing Funding Specifically to 

Improve the Quality of Teachers 

Program name Grant design Eligible recipients Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations 

(Dollars in 

thousands)

Striving Readers Competitive 

(1) School district that (a) are eligible 

to receive funds under the 

Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA), Title I, Part 

A, pursuant to Sec. 1113 of ESEA 

and (b) serve students in one or 

more of grades 6 through 12. 

Eligible districts may apply 

individually, with other eligible 

districts, or in partnership with one or 

more of the following entities: SEAs; 

intermediate service agencies; 

public or private IHEs; and public or 

private organizations with expertise 

in adolescent literacy, rigorous 

evaluation, or both. (2) SEAs on 

behalf of one or more districts that 

meet the requirements above. SEAs 

must apply on behalf of one or more 

eligible districts and also may 

partner with one or more of the 

following entities: intermediate 

service agencies; public or private 

IHEs; and public or private 

organizations with expertise in 

adolescent literacy, rigorous 

evaluation, or both. For any 

application, the fiscal agent must be 

an eligible district or an SEA. 

To raise student achievement in 

middle- and high-school-aged 

students who are reading below 

grade level, and serve schools 

by improving the literacy skills of 

struggling adolescent readers 

and to help build a strong, 

scientific research base around 

specific strategies that improve 

adolescent literacy skills. 

35,371

School Leadership 

Program 

Competitive High-need school districts, consortia 

of high-need districts, or 

partnerships that consist of at least 

one high-need school district and at 

least one nonprofit organization 

(which may be a community- or 

faith-based organization) or 

institutions of higher education may 

apply. 

To support the development, 

enhancement, or expansion of 

innovative programs to recruit, 

train, and mentor principals 

(including assistant principals) 

for high-need districts. 

19,220

Troops-to-Teachers Noncompetitive Current and former members of the 

U.S. armed forces, including 

members of the Armed Forces 

Reserves. 

Provides financial assistance 

and counseling to help military 

personnel obtain their teacher 

licenses, especially in shortage 

areas, such as math, science, 

and special education, and find 

employment in high-need 

districts and schools, as well as 

charter schools. 

14,389

Page 50 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix II: Primary Programs: Twenty-three 

Programs Providing Funding Specifically to 

Improve the Quality of Teachers 

Program name Grant design Eligible recipients Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations 

(Dollars in 

thousands)

Indian Education 

Professional 

Development 

Grants 

Competitive (1) IHEs, including Indian IHEs; (2) 

SEAs or school districts, in 

consortium with these institutions; 

(3) Indian tribes or organizations, in 

consortium with IHEs; and (4) the 

U.S. Department of the Interior’s 

Bureau of Indian Education-funded 

schools in consortium with IHEs. 

To prepare and train Indian 

individuals to serve as teachers 

and education professionals. 

Professional development grants 

are awarded to increase the 

number of qualified Indian 

individuals in professions that 

serve Indians; provide training to 

qualified Indians to become 

teachers, administrators, teacher 

aides, social workers, and 

ancillary education personnel; 

and improve the skills of those 

qualified Indians who serve 

currently in those capacities. 

8,211

Ready-to-Teach Competitive For National Telecommunications 

Grants, nonprofit telecommunication 

entities or a partnership of such 

entities may apply. 

Supports two types of grants to 

nonprofit telecommunications 

entities: (1) grants to carry out a 

national telecommunicationsbased program to improve 

teaching in core curriculum areas 

and (2) digital educational 

programming grants that enable 

eligible entities to develop, 

produce, and distribute 

educational and instructional 

video programming. 

10,700

Advanced 

Certification or 

Advanced 

Credentialing 

Noncompetitive SEAs; school districts; the National 

Board for Professional Teaching 

Standards, in partnership with a 

high-need school district or SEA; the 

National Council on Teacher Quality, 

in partnership with a high-need SEA 

or district; or another recognized 

entity, including another recognized 

certification or credentialing 

organization, in partnership with a 

high-need SEA or district. 

Supports activities to encourage 

and support teachers seeking 

advanced certification or 

advanced credentialing through 

high-quality professional teacher 

enhancement programs 

designed to improve teaching 

and learning. 

10,649

Page 51 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix II: Primary Programs: Twenty-three 

Programs Providing Funding Specifically to 

Improve the Quality of Teachers 

Program name Grant design Eligible recipients Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations 

(Dollars in 

thousands)

Professional 

Development for 

Arts Educators 

Competitive (1) A school district acting on behalf 

of a school or schools where at least 

50 percent of the children are from 

low-income families; and (2) must 

work in partnership with at least one 

of the following: a state or local 

nonprofit or governmental arts 

organization; an institution of higher 

education; a SEA or regional 

education service agency; a public 

or private agency, institution, or 

organization including a museum, 

arts education association, library, 

theater, or community- or faithbased organization. 

Supports the implementation of 

high-quality professional 

development model programs in 

elementary and secondary 

education in music, dance, 

drama, media arts, and visual 

arts for arts educators and other 

instructional staff of K-12 

students in high-poverty schools.

7,464

Territories and 

Freely Associated 

States Education 

Grant Program 

Competitive, but 

limited to outlying 

areas 

School districts in the outlying areas 

(American Samoa, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands) and the Republic of Palau. 

To support teacher training, 

curriculum development, 

instructional materials or general 

school improvement and reform, 

and direct educational services. 

The Pacific Regional Educational 

Laboratory provides technical 

assistance and makes 

recommendations for funding to 

the Secretary of Education, who 

conducts a grants competition. 

5,000

National Writing 

Project 

Noncompetitive Only the National Writing Project is 

eligible. 

The National Writing Project is a 

nationwide nonprofit education 

organization that promotes K-16 

teacher training programs in the 

effective teaching of writing. 

24,291

Higher Education 

Act 

Teacher Quality 

Partnership Grants 

Competitive Partnership of institution of higher 

education, including a teacher 

preparation program and a school or 

department of arts and science, at 

least one high-need school district, 

and either a high-need school or a 

consortium of high-need schools 

served by the high-need school 

district; or as applicable, a high-need 

early childhood education program. 

Through collaborative efforts, to 

support the prebaccalaureate 

preparation of teachers or a 

teaching residency program, or a 

combination of such programs. 

Grants may also be used to carry 

out a leadership development 

program. 

50,000b

Page 52 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix II: Primary Programs: Twenty-three 

Programs Providing Funding Specifically to 

Improve the Quality of Teachers 

Program name Grant design Eligible recipients Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations 

(Dollars in 

thousands)

Individuals with 

Disabilities 

Education Act 

Special Education—

Personnel 

Development to 

Improve Services 

and Results for 

Children with 

Disabilities 

Competitive Institutions of higher education, 

school districts, nonprofit 

organizations, and other 

organizations and/or SEAs. 

To improve the quality of K-12 

special education teacher 

preparation programs to ensure 

that program graduates are able 

to meet the highly qualified 

teacher requirements and are 

well prepared to serve children 

with a high incidence of 

disabilities. 

90,653

Special Education—

State Personnel 

Development Grant 

Program 

Competitive SEA. To assist SEAs in reforming and 

improving their systems for 

personnel preparation and 

professional development in 

early intervention, education, and 

transition services in order to 

improve results for children with 

disabilities 

48,000

America 

COMPETES Act 

Teachers for a 

Competitive 

Tomorrow Program: 

Baccalaureate 

Science, 

Technology, 

Engineering and 

Mathematics 

(STEM) and 

Foreign Language 

Teacher Training 

Competitive Institutions of higher education. To develop and implement 

programs providing courses of 

study in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics 

fields or critical foreign 

languages that are integrated 

with teacher education. 

Graduates receive baccalaureate 

degrees in STEM fields or critical 

foreign languages, concurrent 

with teacher certification. 

1,092

Teachers for a 

Competitive 

Tomorrow Program: 

Masters STEM and 

Foreign Language 

Teacher Training 

Competitive Institutions of higher education. To offer a master’s degree in a 

STEM field or critical foreign 

language content areas to 

current teachers and to enable 

professionals in these fields to 

pursue a 1-year master’s degree 

that leads to teacher certification.

1,092

Page 53 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix II: Primary Programs: Twenty-three 

Programs Providing Funding Specifically to 

Improve the Quality of Teachers 

Program name Grant design Eligible recipients Purpose 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriations 

(Dollars in 

thousands)

American History 

and Civics 

Education Act of 

2004 

Academies for 

American History 

and Civics 

Competitive IHEs, museums, libraries, and other 

public and private agencies, 

organizations, and institutions 

(including for-profit organizations) or 

a consortium of such agencies, 

organizations, and institutions may 

apply. Applicants must demonstrate 

expertise in historical methodology 

or the teaching of history. 

Supports the establishment of 

Presidential Academies for 

Teachers of American History 

and Civics that offer workshops 

for both veteran and new 

teachers of American history and 

civics to strengthen their 

knowledge and preparation for 

teaching these subjects. The 

program also supports 

establishment of Congressional 

Academies for Students of 

American History and Civics for 

high school students to develop 

a broader and deeper 

understanding of these subjects. 

$1,945

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data. 

a

The Teacher Incentive Fund also received $200 million in funding through the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). 

b

The Teacher Quality Enhancement grant received an additional $100 million through the Recovery 

Act. 

Page 54 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix III: Programs That Support Broad 

Objectives but Allow or Require Some Funds 

to Be Used for Teacher Quality 

Program Purpose Grant recipient 

Grant design: formula grants 

Improving Basic 

Academic Achievement 

Programs for the 

Disadvantaged 

To ensure that all children have a fair, equal opportunity to 

obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, 

proficiency on challenging state academic achievement 

standards and state academic assessments. 

SEAs and school districts. 

Tech Prep Education Program provides assistance to states to award grants to 

consortia of school districts and postsecondary education 

institutions for the development and operation of programs 

consisting of the last 2 years of secondary education and at 

least 2 years of postsecondary education, designed to 

provide Tech Prep education to the student leading to an 

associate degree or a 2-year certificate. 

Awards are made to eligible state agencies for 

career and technical education, which award 

funds on the basis of a formula or competition 

to consortia. Eligible consortia must include at 

least one member in each of the two following 

categories: (1) A school district, an 

intermediate education agency, education 

service agency, or an area career and 

technical education school serving secondary 

school students, or a secondary school 

funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs; or (2) 

either (a) a nonprofit institution of higher 

education (IHE) that offers a 2-year associate 

degree, 2-year certificate, or 2-year 

postsecondary apprenticeship program, or (b) 

a proprietary institution of higher education 

that offers a 2-year associate degree program.

Career and Technical 

Education—Basic 

Grants to States 

To develop the academic, career, and technical skills of 

secondary and postsecondary students who enroll in career 

and technical programs. This program provides states with 

support for leadership activities, administration of the state 

plan for career and technical education, and subgrants to 

eligible recipients to improve career and technical education 

programs. 

State agencies for career and technical 

education. 

Indian Education—

Formula Grants to Local 

Education Agencies 

Program designed to address the unique education and 

culturally related academic needs of American Indian and 

Alaska Native students, including preschool children, so 

that these students can achieve the same challenging state 

performance standards expected of all students. This is 

Education’s principal vehicle for addressing the particular 

needs of Indian children. Grant funds supplement the 

regular school programs and support such activities as 

after-school programs, early childhood education, tutoring, 

and dropout prevention. 

Districts that enroll a threshold number of 

eligible Indian children and certain schools 

funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Indian 

tribes, and under certain conditions, may also 

apply. 

Migrant Education—

Basic State Formula 

Grants 

Supports high-quality education programs for migratory 

children and helps ensure that migratory children who move 

among the states are not penalized by disparities among 

states in curriculum, graduation requirements, or state 

academic content and student academic achievement 

standards. States use program funds to identify eligible 

children and provide education and support services. These 

may include academic instruction, bilingual and multicultural 

instruction, career education services, advocacy services, 

counseling and testing services, health services, and 

preschool services. 

SEAs, which in turn make subgrants to local 

operating agencies that serve migrant 

students. Local operating agencies may be 

school districts, institutions of higher 

education, and other public and nonprofit 

agencies. 

Appendix III: Programs That Support Broad 

Objectives but Allow or Require Some Funds 

to Be Used for Teacher Quality 

Page 55 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality 
Appendix III: Programs That Support Broad 

Objectives but Allow or Require Some Funds 

to Be Used for Teacher Quality 

Program Purpose Grant recipient 

Even Start Program offers grants to support local family literacy 

projects that integrate early childhood education, and adult 

literacy. Five percent of funds are is aside for family literacy 

grants for migratory worker families, the outlying areas, and 

Indian tribes and tribal organizations; one grant must be 

awarded to a women’s prison and up to 3 percent is for 

evaluation activities. Remaining funds are allocated to 

SEAs based on their Title I, Part A allocation and SEAs 

make competitive subgrants to partnerships of school 

districts and other organizations. Projects include providing 

staff training and support services. 

SEAs and subgrants to school district 

partnerships. 

Small Rural School 

Achievement 

To provide financial assistance to rural school districts to 

assist them in meeting their state’s definition of adequate 

yearly progress. Note: a school district that is eligible for this 

program is not eligible for the Rural and Low-Income 

Schools program (see below). 

Primarily to districts that (1) have a total 

average daily attendance of fewer than 600 

students or only serve schools located in 

counties of fewer than 10 persons per square 

mile, and (2) serve schools with Education’s 

National Center for Education Sciences locale 

code of 7 or 8 or located in an area defined as 

rural by state. 

Rural and Low-Income 

Schools 

To provide financial assistance to rural districts to assist 

them in meeting their state’s definition of adequate yearly 

progress. This program provides grant funds to rural 

districts that serve concentrations of children from lowincome families. 

SEAs receive grants and provide subgrants to 

school districts in which (1) 20 percent or 

more of the children age 5-17 served by the 

school district are from families with incomes 

below the poverty line, (2) all schools served 

by the district have a school locale code of 

6,7, or 8; and are (3) not eligible to participate 

in the Small Rural School Achievement 

program. 

Preschool Grants for 

Children with Disabilities 

To provide special education services to children with 

disabilities, ages 3-5. Permitted expenditures include the 

salaries of special education teachers and costs associated 

with related services. 

SEAs. 

Special Education 

Grants to States 

Assists states including the District of Columbia and Puerto 

Rico in meeting the costs of providing special education and 

related services to children with disabilities. States may use 

funds to provide a free appropriate public education to 

children with disabilities. Permitted expenditures include the 

salaries of special education teachers and costs associated 

with related services personnel, such as speech therapists 

and psychologists. 

SEAs and school districts. 

English Language 

Acquisition State Grants 

To improve the education of limited English proficient 

children and youths by helping them to learn English and 

meet state academic content and student academic 

achievement standards. 

SEAs and subgrants to school districts. 

Grant design: competitive grants 

Career and Technical 

Education—Grants to 

Native Americans and 

Alaska Natives 

To improve the career and technical education skills of 

Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Projects make 

improvements in career and technical education programs 

for Native American and Alaska Native youths. 

Federally recognized Indian tribes, tribal 

organizations, Alaska Native entities, and 

consortia of any of the previously mentioned 

entities may apply. 

Page 56 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix III: Programs That Support Broad 

Objectives but Allow or Require Some Funds 

to Be Used for Teacher Quality 

Program Purpose Grant recipient 

Career and Technical 

Education—Native 

Hawaiians 

Provides assistance to plan, conduct, and administer 

programs or portions of programs that provide career and 

technical training and related activities to Native Hawaiians. 

Program supports career and technical education and 

training projects for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. 

Community-based organizations primarily 

serving and representing Native Hawaiians. 

Advanced Placement 

Incentive Program 

Enables grantees to increase the participation of lowincome students in both pre-advanced placement and 

advanced placement courses and tests. Allowable activities 

include professional development for teachers, curriculum 

development, the purchase of books and supplies, and 

other activities directly related to expanding access to and 

participation in advanced placement courses and tests for 

low-income students. 

School districts, SEAs, and nonprofit 

organizations. 

Improving Literacy 

Through School 

Libraries 

Program helps school districts improve reading 

achievement by providing students with increased access to 

up-to-date school library materials; well-equipped, 

technologically advanced school library media centers; and 

professionally certified school library media specialists. 

School districts may use funds for a variety of activities 

such as providing professional development for school 

library media specialists and providing activities that foster 

increased collaboration among library specialists, teachers, 

and administrators. 

School districts in which at least 20 percent of 

students served are from families with 

incomes below the poverty line. 

Indian Education 

Demonstration Grants 

for Indian Children 

Designed to improve the education opportunities and 

achievement of preschool, elementary, and secondary 

Indian children by developing, testing, and demonstrating 

effective services and programs. Funding priorities in 2008

were for (1) school readiness projects that provide ageappropriate educational programs and language skills to 3- 

and 4-year-old Indian students to prepare them for 

successful entry into school at the kindergarten level and 

(2) college preparatory programs for secondary school 

students designed to increase competency and skills in 

challenging subject matter, such as mathematics and 

science. 

SEAs, school districts, Indian tribes, Indian 

organizations, federally supported elementary 

and secondary schools for Indian students, 

and Indian institutions, including Indian 

institutions of higher education, or consortia of 

such entities. 

Migrant Education 

Program—Even Start 

Designed to help break the cycle of poverty and improve 

the literacy of participating migrant families by integrating 

early childhood education, adult literacy or adult basic 

education, and parenting education into a unified family 

literacy program. Funds support projects such as early 

childhood education, adult education; Head Start programs, 

training for staff, and support services. 

Institutions of higher education, school 

districts, SEAs, and nonprofit and other 

organizations and agencies. 

Carol M. White Physical 

Education Program 

Provides grants to initiate, expand, and improve physical 

education programs for K-12 students to help them make 

progress toward meeting state standards for physical 

education. Funds may be used to provide equipment and 

support and to enable students to participate actively in 

physical education activities. Funds also may support staff 

and teacher training and education. 

School districts and community-based 

organizations. 

Page 57 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix III: Programs That Support Broad 

Objectives but Allow or Require Some Funds 

to Be Used for Teacher Quality 

Program Purpose Grant recipient 

Magnet Schools 

Assistance 

Grants assist in the desegregation of public schools by 

supporting the elimination, reduction, and prevention of 

minority group isolation in elementary and secondary 

schools with substantial numbers of minority group 

students. Projects must support the development and 

implementation of magnet schools that assist in the 

achievement of systemic reforms and provide all students 

with the opportunity to meet challenging academic content 

and achievement standards. Projects support the 

development and design of innovative education methods 

and practices that promote diversity and increase choices in 

public education programs. The program supports capacity 

development through professional development and other 

activities, such as the implementation of courses of 

instruction in magnet schools that strengthen students’ 

knowledge of core academic subjects. Program supports 

the implementation of courses of instruction in magnet 

schools that strengthen students’ knowledge of core 

academic subjects. 

School districts or consortia of districts that 

are implementing court-ordered or federally 

approved voluntary desegregation plans that 

include magnet schools are eligible to apply. 

Arts in Education—

Model Development and 

Dissemination Grants 

Program 

Supports the enhancement, expansion, documentation, 

evaluation, and dissemination of innovative, cohesive 

models that demonstrate effectiveness in (1) integrating into 

and strengthening arts in the core elementary and middle 

school curricula, (2) strengthening arts instruction, and (3) 

improving students’ academic performance, including their 

skills in creating, performing, and responding to the arts. 

Funds must be used to (1) further the development of 

programs designed to improve or expand the integration of 

arts education, (2) develop materials designed to help 

replicate or adapt arts programs, (3) document and assess 

the results and benefits of arts programs, and (4) develop 

products and services that can be used to replicate arts 

programs in other settings. 

School districts and nonprofit organizations. 

Women’s Educational 

Equity 

Promotes education equity for women and girls through 

competitive grants. Allowable activities include training for 

teachers and other school personnel to encourage gender 

equity in the classroom, evaluating exemplary model 

programs, school-to-work transition programs, guidance 

and counseling activities to increase opportunities for 

women in technologically demanding workplaces, and 

developing strategies to assist districts in evaluating, 

disseminating, and replicating gender-equity programs. 

Institutions of higher education, school 

districts, SEAs, nonprofit organizations, other 

organizations and agencies. 

Native American and 

Alaska Native Children 

in School 

Provides grants to support language instruction education 

projects for Limited English Proficient children from Native 

American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific 

Islander backgrounds to ensure that they meet the same 

rigorous standards for academic achievement that all 

children are expected to meet. 

Indian tribes; tribally sanctioned education 

authorities; Native Hawaiian or Native 

American Pacific Islander native language 

education organizations; and elementary, 

secondary, or postsecondary schools 

operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs Education, or a consortium of such 

schools and an institution of higher education. 

Page 58 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix III: Programs That Support Broad 

Objectives but Allow or Require Some Funds 

to Be Used for Teacher Quality 

Program Purpose Grant recipient 

Fund for the 

Improvement of 

Education—Programs 

of National Significance 

This program provides authority for the Secretary of 

Education to support nationally significant programs to 

improve the quality of elementary and secondary education 

at the state and local levels and to help all students meet 

challenging state academic standards. 

Institutions of higher education, school 

districts, SEAs, and nonprofit and other 

organizations and agencies. 

Jacob K. Javits Gifted 

and Talented Student 

Education 

To carry out a coordinated program of scientifically based 

research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and 

similar activities designed to enhance the ability of K-12 

schools to meet the education needs of gifted and talented 

students. 

Institutions of higher education, school 

districts, SEAs, nonprofit organizations, other 

organizations and agencies. 

Foreign Language 

Assistance Program 

(Districts) 

Provides grants to establish, improve, or expand innovative 

foreign language programs for elementary and secondary 

school students. In awarding grants under this program, the 

Secretary of Education supports projects that (1) show the 

promise of being continued beyond their project period and 

(2) demonstrate approaches that can be disseminated and 

duplicated by other school districts. 

School districts. 

Foreign Language 

Assistance Program 

(SEAs) 

Provides grants to establish, improve, or expand innovative 

foreign language programs for elementary and secondary 

school students. In awarding grants under this program, the 

Secretary of Education supports projects that promote 

systemic approaches to improving foreign language 

learning in the state. 

SEAs. 

Native Hawaiian 

Education Program 

To develop innovative educational programs to assist 

Native Hawaiians and to supplement and expand programs 

and authorities in the area of education. 

School districts, SEAs, and IHEs with 

experience in developing or operating Native 

Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction 

in the Native Hawaiian language, and Native 

Hawaiian education organizations; public and 

private nonprofit organizations, agencies, and 

institutions; and consortia thereof. 

Alaska Native Education 

Equity 

To meet the unique education needs of Alaska Natives and 

support supplemental programs to benefit Alaska Natives. 

Activities include, but are not limited to, the development of 

curricula and education programs that address student 

needs and the development and operation of student 

enrichment programs in science and mathematics. Eligible 

activities also include professional development for 

educators, activities carried out through Even Start and 

Head Start programs, family literacy services, and dropout 

prevention programs. 

An SEA or school district may apply as part of 

a consortium involving an Alaska Native 

organization. Also Alaska Native 

organizations, education entities with 

experience in developing or operating Alaska 

Native programs or programs of instruction 

conducted in Alaska Native languages, 

cultural and community-based organizations 

with experience in developing or operating 

programs to benefit Alaska Natives, and 

consortia or organizations. 

Special Education—

National ActivitiesTechnology and Media 

Services 

To (1) improve results for children with disabilities by 

promoting the development, demonstration, and use of 

technology; (2) support educational media services 

activities designed to be of value in the classroom setting 

for children with disabilities; and (3) provide support for 

captioning and video description that and appropriate for 

use in the classroom setting. Program supports technology 

development, demonstration, and utilization. Educational 

media activities, such as video descriptions and captioning 

of educational materials, also are supported. 

Institutions of higher education, school 

districts, SEAs, nonprofit organizations, or 

other organizations. 

Page 59 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix III: Programs That Support Broad 

Objectives but Allow or Require Some Funds 

to Be Used for Teacher Quality 

Program Purpose Grant recipient 

Special Education—

National Activities—

Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination 

To promote academic achievement and improve results for 

children with disabilities by providing technical assistance, 

model demonstration projects, dissemination of useful 

information, and implementation activities that are 

supported by scientifically based research. 

Institutions of higher education, school 

districts, SEAs, nonprofit organizations, and 

other organizations and/or agencies. 

Excellence in Economic 

Education 

This program promotes economic and financial literacy 

among all students in kindergarten through grade 12 

through the award of one grant to a national nonprofit 

education organization that has as its primary purpose the 

improvement of the quality of student understanding of 

personal finance and economics. 

The National Council on Economic Education, 

SEAs, school districts. 

Fund for the 

Improvement of 

Postsecondary 

Education—

Comprehensive 

Program 

A program supporting innovative reform projects for 

improving the quality of postsecondary education and 

increasing student access. 

Institutions of higher education, and other 

organizations and agencies. 

Statewide Longitudinal 

Data Systems 

To enable SEAs to design, develop, and implement 

statewide longitudinal data systems to efficiently and 

accurately manage, analyze, disaggregate, and use 

individual student data, consistent with the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 

6301 et seq.). 

SEAs. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data. 

Page 60 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix IV: Institute of Education Sciences’ 

Sponsored Research on Teacher Quality, 

2003–2009 

Year Research recipient Teacher quality project Grant award

2009 University of California, 

Berkeley 

Teacher Quality: The Role of Teacher Study Groups as a Model of 

Professional Development in Early Literacy for Preschool Teachers 

$1,339,403

2009 Education Development 

Center, Inc. 

Assessing the Efficacy of a Comprehensive Intervention in Physical Science 

on Head Start Teachers and Children 

2,999,841

2009 University of Texas Health 

Science Center at Houston 

Improving School Readiness of High Risk Preschoolers: Combining High 

Quality Instructional Strategies with Responsive Training for Teachers 

2,653,503

2009 University of Cincinnati INSPIRE Urban Teaching Fellows Program 1,500,000

2009 The Pennsylvania State 

University 

Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and 

Resilience in Education 

932,424

2009 University of Illinois at Chicago Enhancing Effectiveness and Connectedness Among Early Career 

Teachers in Urban Schools 

1,012,701

2008 University of California, San 

Diego 

Education Research: BioBridge Teacher Quality—The BioBridge Teacher 

Professional Development 

948,447

2008 University of South Florida Leadership for Integrated Middle-School Science 1,444,403

2008 University of Michigan Development of an Interactive, Multimedia Assessment of Teachers’ 

Knowledge of Early Reading 

1,770,582

2008 National Bureau of Economic 

Research 

Value-Added Models and the Measurement of Teacher Quality: Tracking or 

Causal Effects 

294,295

2008 University of Pittsburgh The Iterative Design of Modules to Support Reading Comprehension 

Instruction 

1,386,901

2008 Ohio State University Efficacy of Read It Again! In Rural Preschool Settings 3,073,485

2008 Rutgers, the State University of 

New Jersey 

Development and Validation of a Teacher Progress Monitoring Scale for 

Elementary School Teachers 

1,438,905

2008 Iris Media Inc. Online Teacher Training: Promoting Student Social Competence to Improve 

Academic and Behavioral Outcomes in Grades K-3 

2,293,415

2008 Mid-Continent Regional 

Educational Laboratory 

Visualizing Science with Adapted Curriculum Enhancements 1,489,399

2007 Mills College Improving the Mathematical Content Base of Lesson Study Design and Test 

of a Research-Based Toolkit 

1,997,590

2007 WestEd Understanding Science: Improving Achievement of Middle School Students 

in Science 

1,990,754

2007 University of Virginia The Efficacy of the Responsive Classroom Approach for Improving Teacher 

Quality and Children’s Academic Performance 

2,814,668

2007 Milwaukee School of 

Engineering 

Effect of the SUN Teacher Workshop on Student Achievement 1,262,083

2007 Purdue University Classroom Links to Vocabulary and Phonological Sensitivity Skills 1,738,508

2007 University of Virginia Pre-K Mathematics and Science for At-Risk Children: Outcomes-Focused 

Curricula and Support for Teaching Quality 

1,949,854

2007 University of Oregon Reading Intervention with Spanish Speaking Students: Maximizing 

Instructional Effectiveness in English and Spanish 

3,498,216

2007 University of Michigan Modeling Situation Awareness in Teachers 816,936

Appendix IV: Institute of Education Sciences’ 

Sponsored Research on Teacher Quality, 

2003–2009 

Page 61 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality 
Appendix IV: Institute of Education Sciences’ 

Sponsored Research on Teacher Quality, 

2003–2009 

Year Research recipient Teacher quality project Grant award

2007 University of Illinois, Chicago Collaborative Teacher Network 1,207,516

2007 University of Kansas Improving Instruction Through Implementation of the Partnership 

Instructional Coaching Model 

1,919,577

2007 Florida State University The Effects of Teacher Preparation and Professional Development on 

Special Education Teacher Quality 

640,044

2007 University of Florida The Influence of Collaborative Professional Development Groups & 

Coaching on the Literacy Instruction of Upper Elementary Special Education 

Teachers 

2,293,415

2007 University of Florida Impact of Professional Development on Preschool Teachers’ Use of 

Embedded-Instruction Practices 

1,288,510

2006 University of California, 

Berkeley 

Integrating Science and Diversity Education: A Model of Pre-Service 

Elementary Teacher Preparation 

1,473,522

2006 LessonLab, Inc. Using Video Clips of Classroom Instruction as Item Prompts to Measure 

Teacher Knowledge of Teaching Mathematics: Instrument Development and 

Validation 

1,413,121

2006 California State University, 

Long Beach 

Standards-Based Differentiated ELD Instruction to Improve English 

Language Arts Achievement for English Language Learners 

991,630

2006 University at Albany, State 

University of New York 

Enhancing Knowledge Related to Research-Based Early Literacy Instruction 

Among Pre-Service Teachers 

1,440,551

2006 University of California, Irvine The Pathway Project: A Cognitive Strategies Approach to Reading and 

Writing Instruction for Teachers of Secondary English Language Learners 

2,942,842

2006 University of Pittsburgh Content-Focused Coaching for High Quality Reading Instruction 5,946,864

2006 Research Foundation of the 

State University of New York 

Do Lower Barriers to Entry Affect Achievement and Teacher Retention: The 

Case of New York City Math Immersion 

429,500

2006 Miami Museum of Science Early Childhood Hands-On Science Curriculum Development and 

Demonstration Project 

1,415,652

2006 University of Virginia National Center for Research on Early Childhood Education (NCRECE): 

Preschool Teacher Professional Development Study 

11,016,009

2006 Vanderbilt University National Center for Performance Incentives 10,835,509

2006 Urban Institute Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research 

(CALDER) 

10,000,000

2006 University of Hawaii I in the IEP [IEP is the acronym for Individual Education Program.] 1,500,000

2005 Allegheny Singer Research 

Institute 

Mentoring Teachers Through Pedagogical Content Knowledge 

Development 

957,825

2005 Education Development 

Center, Inc. 

Assessing the Potential Impact of a Professional Development Program in 

Science on Head Start Teachers and Children 

1,367,500

2005 University of Nebraska-Lincoln Evolving Inquiry: An Experimental Test of a Science Instruction Model for 

Teachers in Rural, Culturally Diverse Schools 

1,261,684

2005 University of Toledo Utah’s Improving Science Teacher Quality Initiative 913,620

2005 South Carolina Department of 

Education 

Investigating the Efficacy of a Professional Development Program in 

Classroom Assessment for Middle School Reading and Mathematics 

1,680,625

2005 SRI International Comparing the Efficacy of Three Approaches to Improving Teaching Quality 

in Science Education: Curriculum Implementation, Design, and Adaptation 

1,864,415

Page 62 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix IV: Institute of Education Sciences’ 

Sponsored Research on Teacher Quality, 

2003–2009 

Year Research recipient Teacher quality project Grant award

2005 University of South Florida Replication and Outcomes of the Teaching SMART Program in Elementary 

Science Classrooms 

2,408,168

2005 Florida State University Identifying the Conditions Under Which Large Scale Professional 

Development Policy Initiatives are Related to Teacher Knowledge 

Instructional Practices, and Student Reading Outcomes 

500,000

2005 Success for All Foundation Embedded Classroom Multimedia: Improving Implementation Quality and 

Student Achievement in a Cooperative Writing Program 

1,498,045

2005 Texas A&M University Enhancing the Quality of Expository Text Instruction Through Content and 

Case-Situated Professional Development 

1,498,530

2005 University of Texas at San 

Antonio 

Teaching Teachers to Teach Critical Reading Strategies (CREST) Through 

an Intensive Professional Development Model 

926,814

2005 Education Development Center 

Inc. 

Examining the Efficacy of Two Models of Preschool Professional 

Development in Language and Literacy 

2,834,272

2005 WestEd A Randomized Controlled Study of the Efficacy of Reading Apprenticeship 

Professional Development for High School History and Science Teaching 

and Learning 

2,997,972

2005 University of Michigan Assessment of Pedagogical Knowledge of Teachers of Reading 1,677,575

2005 Utah State University Connecting Primary Grade Teacher Knowledge to Primary Grade Student 

Achievement: Developing the Evidence-Based Reading/Writing Teacher 

Knowledge Assessment System 

926,814

2004 DePaul University Algebra Connections: Teacher Education in Clear Instruction and 

Responsive Assessment of Algebra Patterns and Problem Solving 

1,052,822

2004 Educational Testing Service The Relationship Between Mathematics Teachers’ Content Knowledge and 

Students’ Mathematics Achievement: Exploring the Predictive Validity of the 

Praxis Series Middle School Mathematics Test 

1,573,623

2004 Purdue University Professional Development in Early Reading 1,418,091

2004 University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill 

Improving Teacher Quality to Address the Language and Literacy Skills of 

Latino Children in Pre-Kindergarten Programs 

1,467,046

2004 University of Chicago Can Literacy Professional Development be Improved With Web-Based 

Collaborative Learning Tools? A Randomized Field Trial 

3,046,054

2004 Florida State University Assessing Teacher Effectiveness: How Can We Predict Who Will Be a High 

Quality Teacher? 

978,698

2004 RAND Corporation Teacher Licensure Tests and Student Achievement 1,590,967

2004 Vanderbilt University Opening the Black Box in Choice and Regular Public Schools (a research 

project within the National Research & Development Center on School 

Choice) 

3,262,563

2004 University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill 

National Research Center on Rural Education Support (estimated amount of 

total award devoted to teacher quality research) 

11,200,000

2004 Vanderbilt University Scaling Up Peer Assisted Learning Strategies to Strengthen Reading 

Achievement 

5,618,237

2003 LessonLab Inc. Improving Achievement by Maintaining the Learning Potential of Rich 

Mathematics Problems: An Experimental Study of a Video- and InternetBased Professional Development Program 

1,594,021

Page 63 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix IV: Institute of Education Sciences’ 

Sponsored Research on Teacher Quality, 

2003–2009 

Year Research recipient Teacher quality project Grant award

2003 Haskins Laboratories Mastering Reading Instruction: A Professional Development Project for First 

Grade Teachers 

2,912,063

2003 Instructional Research Group Teacher Quality Study: An Investigation of the Impact of Teacher Study 

Groups as a Means to Enhance The Quality of Reading Instruction for First 

Graders in High Poverty Schools in Two States 

2,820,670

2003 University of Michigan Identifying Key Components of Effective Professional Development in 

Reading for First Grade Teachers and Their Students 

1,677,575

Total grants $159,393,859

Source: GAO analysis of IES research projects. 

Page 64 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education 

Department of Education 

Page 65 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality 
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Education 

Page 66 GAO-09-593 Teacher Quality
Appendix VI: 

S

GAO Contacts and 

taff Acknowledgments

Page 67 GAO-09-593 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov

Bryon Gordon (Assistant Director) and James Whitcomb (Analyst-inCharge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Nancy Purvine, Ed 

Bodine, and Kristin Van Wychen made significant contributions to this 

report in all aspects of the work. Jean McSween, Stuart Kaufman, and Ying 

Long provided key technical support, and James Rebbe provided legal 

support. Christopher Langford assisted with quality assurance. Jessica Orr 

contributed to writing this report. Mimi Nguyen developed the graphics for 

the report. 

Teacher Quality 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130827) 
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