Troops to Teachers: Program Helped Address Teacher Shortages
Published: 2001-05-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In response to a shortage of math and science teachers and reductions in U.S. military personnel, Congress created the Troops to Teachers (TTT) program in 1992. Until 1995, the program, which was run by the Defense Department, offered stipends to program participants and incentive grants to school districts to hire TTT teachers. Congress transferred the program from DOD to the Department of Education in 1999. This report reviews the program from its beginning in January 1994 until its transfer to Education.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that 13,756 former military personnel applied to the program and were accepted. Of these, 3,821 were hired as teachers from 1994 through 2000; more than 90 percent of those applicants hired as teachers remained in teaching after the first year. However, these participation figures most likely represent the minimum number of former military personnel who used the program's services and became teachers because the figures include only those persons who formally applied to the TTT program and who completed follow-up surveys. Compared with all teachers nationwide, a higher percentage of TTT teachers overall taught math, science, special education, and vocational education and taught in inner city schools and high schools. Factors such as stipends, incentive grants, economic conditions, and state initiatives may have influenced the number of people who applied to the program and became teachers.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Teacher shortages have become a topic of growing public concern. When the shortage of math and science teachers was increasing and the U. S. military forces were undergoing significant reductions in personnel, the Congress enacted legislation in 1992 establishing the Troops to Teachers (TTT) program. The program, administered by the Department of Defense (DoD), was designed to help separated (discharged or retired) military personnel become certified and employed as teachers in school districts with large low-income populations that were experiencing teacher shortages. As part of this effort, DoD worked with state education offices to help military personnel transition into teaching, often by means of a state alternative certification program. In the first 2 years of the program, 1994 and 1995, TTT offered stipends to program participants to help cover their certification costs and incentive grants to school districts to hire TTT teachers, but stopped awarding stipends and grants after 1995. In October 1999, after the significant reductions in the military had leveled off but teacher shortages had become more widespread, the Congress re- authorized the program and transferred it from DoD to the Department of Education (Education) effective October 1, 2000. However, DoD still administers the program under an agreement with Education. This report reviews the program from its beginning in January 1994 until its transfer to Education.
In transferring the program to Education, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 required us to provide information on program accomplishments as of September 30, 2000, and other matters as appropriate. We agreed to provide information on the number of people who applied to the TTT program and were hired as teachers from fiscal years 1994 through 2000 and the percentage of hired teachers who remained in teaching past the first year; the extent to which TTT teachers, compared with all teachers nationwide, taught   math, science, special education, and vocational education;  in inner city and rural areas; and   certain grade levels. factors that might have increased or decreased the number of people who applied for the program and became teachers.
We obtained program data from TTT’s data base and from a study entitled “Profile of Troops to Teachers” completed in 1998 by the National Center for Education Information (NCEI). We interviewed TTT program officials from DoD and from 10 of the 24 state offices that have joined the program and reviewed documents on program operations. We also reviewed reports by research organizations documenting factors that could have affected program participation. We did our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards between October 2000 and March 2001.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Troops to Teachers program is a federal program that began operations in 1994 with two goals: (1) to help military personnel affected by downsizing become teachers and (2) to ease the teacher shortage, especially in math and science and in areas with concentrations of children from low-income families. The program offers information on state teacher certification requirements and job referral and job placement assistance to active and former military personnel who are interested in pursuing teaching as a second career after leaving the military. According to TTT program data, military officers represent a major participant group. During 1994 and 1995, the program also offered financial incentives to military personnel and school districts to participate in the program. Participants who received stipends of up to $5,000 and became certified were required to teach for 5 years. School districts could receive grants of up to $50,000 paid over 5 years for each TTT participant they hired. The program stopped awarding new stipends and grants after 1995 when funds were no longer appropriated for this purpose.
The program is administered by DoD’s Defense Activity for Non- Traditional Education Support (DANTES). DANTES and 24 state TTT offices carry out the program’s efforts to ease former military personnel into teaching. (See fig. 1.) States voluntarily join the TTT program. States that wish to join submit proposals to DANTES describing the services they plan to provide and the activities in which they plan to engage to achieve the TTT program goals. If the proposal is approved, DANTES signs a memorandum of agreement with the state agency responsible for the TTT program, most often the state’s department of education. DANTES provides funds for state program expenses, although the state TTT representatives are not federal employees. From fiscal year 1994 through 2000, DANTES spent $5.5 million on program administration and provided states with a total of $12.1 million to operate their TTT offices, according to program officials.
States that joined the program have had a great deal of flexibility in how they operate the TTT program in their state. State offices determine their own organizational structure, the amount of resources they will devote to the program, and the services they will provide. Sixteen states had joined TTT by 1995 and 8 more joined between 1998 and 2000.
DANTES and state TTT offices operate as a network to provide services to military personnel interested in becoming teachers. As part of this network, DANTES serves the following functions:   Acting as the central liaison for all the military services and the state education offices and promoting the program at a national level.
Approving and monitoring the memorandum of agreements.   Working with the states to share recruitment practices.   Maintaining the TTT program web site with links to state offices.   Facilitating the transition from military life to teaching in the 26 states and the District of Columbia without TTT placement assistance offices.
Monitoring the teaching commitments of the people who received stipends and any school districts that received grants on behalf of persons who applied to the TTT program during 1994 and 1995.
For their part, most state offices provide a broad range of services, including   providing personalized counseling and advice to those who wish to   promoting the TTT program to school districts and the military   promoting military personnel as potential teachers,   maintaining an 800 number and the state link on the TTT web site with information and school district openings, and   working to lessen costs and time required for military personnel to obtain certification.
The environment in which TTT functions has changed in ways that have implications for the program’s future operations.
In 1998, the military downsizing leveled off, essentially removing the first goal of the TTT program.
DANTES’ responsibility for monitoring the teaching commitments of those who received stipends and grants between 1994 and 1995 will end in a few years.
Thirteen additional states currently have contacted DANTES and are waiting to join the program, either independently or as a consortium.
The Congress appropriated $3 million for TTT in fiscal year 2001 under the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, placing TTT within Education’s broader initiative to support teacher recruitment. The Eisenhower Program also provides additional funds in grants to states and/or organizations that wish to develop new avenues for attracting teachers, especially second-career teachers.
The President’s 2002 budget proposes to support and expand TTT activities through the Transition to Teaching program. The $30 million budget proposed for Transition to Teaching would assist nonmilitary as well as military professionals with becoming teachers.
section_title: Program Placed Military Personnel in Teaching, but Numbers May Be Understated
paragraphs: According to TTT records, 3,821 of the 13,756 people accepted into the program were hired as teachers from fiscal years 1994 through 2000. However, this number probably underrepresents the number of people who have used program services and become teachers. Of those participants hired as teachers, over 90 percent remained in teaching past the first year.
TTT program records show that 17,459 people applied to the program from fiscal years 1994 through 2000 and, of these, 13,756 were accepted into the program. Of these participants, 3,821, or 28 percent, became teachers. (See table 1.) More than 85 percent of the TTT teachers were hired in states with TTT offices.
While no formal documentation was maintained on reasons for the withdrawals of 8,554 applicants accepted in the program who did not become teachers, the TTT program director provided several reasons why some participants withdrew from the program. For instance, some military personnel said they had found a better paying job, some realized that they would not like teaching, and others thought the cost and time of the alternative certification process was onerous.
It is difficult to ascertain the full extent of TTT program participation, because program data are incomplete. When the stipends and incentive grants ended after 1995, it became difficult to track the number of people using the program’s resources because they were less inclined to complete application forms and respond to surveys that tracked program retention. In addition, with the creation of the TTT web site, people could access information they needed to find certification programs and teaching positions and do so without applying to the program. Consequently, the number of people who used the program to become teachers is probably understated. DANTES officials told us that they believe their numbers undercount the total number of teachers hired as a result of the TTT program.
Similarly, some state TTT officials said that DANTES records may substantially undercount the number of former military personnel they have placed in teaching positions. Six of the 10 state TTT officials that we contacted said this was the case, but only 4 states—Colorado, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas—kept records with additional information on military persons whom they placed in teaching positions whether or not they completed a TTT program application. Table 2 shows the difference between DANTES’ records and state records for the number of teachers hired within these states.
Available TTT program data also show that over 90 percent of TTT teachers remained in teaching after their first year. The percent of TTT teachers who remain in teaching for at least 3 years is about the same as that for all teachers nationwide, and the percent of TTT teachers that remain for 5 years is markedly better. (See table 3.) However, these retention rates should be considered in light of the fact that TTT teachers who received stipends had to teach for 5 years to pay off their financial commitment. In addition, these data are based solely on teachers who received funding (2,135) and do not include those who did not. However, a TTT program survey done in 1999 of school districts that hired TTT teachers—including those who completed applications and follow-up surveys but did not receive funding—showed similar results.
section_title: TTT Teachers Taught in Areas Where Teacher Shortages Existed
paragraphs: According to TTT program records and NCEI survey data, a higher percentage of TTT teachers overall taught math, science, special education, and vocational education and taught in inner city schools and high schools than all teachers nationwide. (See table 4.) For example, 20 percent of TTT teachers compared with 5 percent of teachers nationwide taught general special education. Also, a higher percentage of TTT teachers are male (86 percent) and minority (33 percent) than the national percentages (26 percent and 11 percent, respectively). Many states that joined the TTT program said that they did so because the program would enable them to fill positions in subjects or geographic areas in which they had shortages, especially in math, science, special education, and vocational education and in inner city schools. They also cited the program’s potential for increasing the diversity of its teacher workforce, some specifically mentioned male and minority teachers as a factor in their decisions to join the TTT program.
section_title: Several Factors Could Have Affected Program Participation
paragraphs: Several factors may have affected—both positively and negatively—the number of military personnel applying to the TTT program and the number hired as teachers. The positive factors were (1) the TTT stipends, (2) the TTT incentive grants, (3) the increased demand for teachers, and (4) accomplishments of state TTT offices. The negative factors were (1) increased demands for specialized workers, (2) economic growth, and (3) a reduction in the number of officers leaving the military.
subsections: section_title: Factors That Could Have Increased the Number of TTT Applicants and Teachers
paragraphs: The following factors may have increased the number of TTT applicants and/or teachers hired.
Stipends. During the first 2 years of the program, stipends lowered the cost of obtaining teacher certification for TTT participants. In a DANTES survey of TTT teachers who had completed their 5-year teaching commitment for receiving the stipend, 59 percent reported that the TTT program was very important in making their decision to become a teacher, and 68 percent reported that the stipend was the most important feature of the TTT program.
Incentive grants. During the first 2 years of the program, TTT incentive grants lowered the cost to school districts of hiring TTT teachers relative to other job candidates, thereby increasing the demand for TTT teachers. The increased probability of being hired would have made the program more attractive to applicants.
Demand for teachers. Education data show that teacher shortages became more widespread in 1998, thus the demand for teachers expanded and intensified. The increased likelihood of employment for TTT teachers after certification could have increased the number of applicants to the program.
Accomplishments of state TTT offices. State TTT offices have experienced some success in decreasing the time and cost of teacher certification for military personnel and in increasing the demand among school districts for TTT hires. Both of these accomplishments probably made the program more attractive to potential applicants.   More alternative teacher certification programs are available to persons pursuing second careers as teachers, including military personnel, sometimes as a direct result of the TTT program. For example, the Florida, Wisconsin, and Washington state TTT offices played roles in convincing their state legislatures in 2000 to authorize new alternative teacher certification programs.
Some state TTT offices, working with DANTES, created opportunities for military personnel to satisfy some teacher certification requirements while still on active duty. For example, the Texas TTT office, working in conjunction with three Texas universities, implemented a distance learning program in the Fall 2000 offering teacher certification classes at military bases worldwide. Texas also worked with DANTES to make its teacher certification examination available at military bases worldwide.
Some states lowered the cost of teacher certification for military personnel in response to the efforts of their state TTT office. For example, California and Washington reduced the fees they charged military personnel to take courses at state universities.
Outreach and promotional activities by state TTT offices increased school districts’ demand for TTT hires. For example, the Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio TTT offices increased the number of school districts that posted their teacher vacancies on the TTT data base.
section_title: Factors That Could Have Decreased the Number of TTT Applicants and Teachers
paragraphs: The following factors may have decreased the number of TTT applicants and/or teachers hired.
Demand for specialized workers. A nationwide increase in demand for workers with math/science backgrounds, especially in information technology and the sciences, which generally pay higher salaries than teaching, may have attracted potential military personnel with these skills away from pursuing a teaching career. Between 1994 and 1999, the number of workers employed in the mathematical and computer sciences increased by almost 56 percent while total employment increased by about 8.5 percent.
Economic growth. The general growth in the economy in the 1990s increased the number of alternative job opportunities for those leaving the military. An important indicator of economic growth and the demand for labor is the unemployment rate. The greater the economic growth, the greater the demand for labor and the lower the unemployment rate. Between 1994 and 1999, the unemployment rate declined from 6.1 percent to 4.2 percent.
Reduction in supply of applicants. The number of retired commissioned officers, warrant officers, and high-graded noncommissioned officers declined from 34,335 to 26,612 between 1994 and 1999. This group comprised 76 percent of all TTT applicants during this period.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The TTT program is currently functioning in an environment that differs greatly from when it began 7 years ago. Its first purpose, to place military persons affected by downsizing initiatives in the classroom, has essentially been eliminated while its second purpose, to address teacher shortages, has become a more critical national issue. Also, the transition to teacher from a different profession has become easier in many states through new or expanded alternative teacher certification programs. With the recent transfer of TTT from DoD to Education, it is too early to determine how TTT will fit into Education’s mission and its broader teacher recruitment and retention initiatives. However, this new environment presents opportunities for Education to explore how best to coordinate the TTT program with other education programs to address the nation’s growing teacher shortage problem.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided Education and DoD with a draft of this report for review, and both agencies provided comments via e-mail.  Education noted that it has other programs to increase the number of qualified teachers, including the Transition to Teacher and Eisenhower Professional Development programs, and that the information in the report will be valuable as the Department continues to explore ways that these programs can collaborate and strengthen services. DoD said that it has reviewed the report and accepted the report’s conclusions.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Roderick R. Paige, Secretary of the Department of Education, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-7215 or Karen Whiten at (202) 512-7291. Key contributors to this report were Mary Roy, Ellen Habenicht, Richard Kelley, Barbara Smith, and Patrick DiBattista.