No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified
Published: 2003-07-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In December 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). The act required that all teachers of core subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year and provided funding to help states and districts meet the requirement. In general, the act requires that teachers have a bachelor's degree, meet full state certification, and demonstrate subject area knowledge for every core subject they teach. This report focuses on the (1) number of teachers who met the highly qualified criteria during the 2002-03 school year, (2) conditions that hinder states' and districts' ability to meet the requirement, and (3) activities on which states and districts were planning to spend their Title II funds. GAO surveyed 50 states and the District of Columbia and a nationally representative sample of districts about their plans to implement the requirement. GAO also visited and interviewed officials in 8 states and 16 districts to discuss their efforts to implement the law.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO could not develop reliable data on the number of highly qualified teachers because states did not have the information needed to determine whether all teachers met the criteria. Officials from 8 states visited said they did not have the information they needed to develop methods to evaluate current teachers' subject area knowledge and the criteria for some teachers were not issued until December 2002. Officials from 7 of 8 states visited said they did not have data systems that could track teacher qualifications for each core subject they teach. Both state and district officials cited many conditions in the GAO survey that hinder their ability to have all highly qualified teachers. State and district officials reported teacher pay issues, such as low salaries and lack of incentive pay, teacher shortages, and other issues as hindrances. GAO's survey estimates show that significantly more high-poverty than low-poverty districts reported hindrances, such as little support for new teachers. Rural district officials cited hindrances related to their size and isolated locations. State officials reported they needed assistance or information from Education, such as in developing incentives to teach in high-poverty schools, and Education's strategic plan addresses some of these needs. To help meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers, state survey respondents reported they planned to spend about 65 percent of their Title II funds on professional development activities authorized under Title II, and districts planned to spend an estimated 66 percent on recruitment and retention. Both state and district officials planned to spend much larger amounts of funds from sources other than Title II funds on such activities. High-poverty districts planned to spend more Title II funds on recruitment and retention than low-poverty districts. State and district officials visited said that most activities were a continuation of those begun previously.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In December 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act  (NCLBA), which, among other things, focused attention on closing the  achievement gaps among various groups of students. Recently, a body of  research has shown that quality teachers play a significant role in  improving student performance. However, research has also shown that  many teachers, especially those in high-poverty and rural districts, were  not certified and lacked knowledge of the subjects they taught. NCLBA  established the requirement that all teachers be highly qualified for each  core subject they teach by the end of the 2005-06 school year. The criteria  for meeting this requirement vary somewhat by grade level and experience  but generally require that teachers have (1) a bachelor’s degree, (2) state  certification, and (3) subject area knowledge for each core subject they  teach. This represents the first time the federal government has  established specific criteria for teachers. Title II, Part A, of NCLBA  replaced the Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size  Reduction programs with the Teacher and Principal Training and  Recruiting Fund and Congress appropriated $2.85 billion to help states and  districts meet the requirement. In addition, Title II directed these funds to  be spent on specific activities to help states and districts recruit, retain,  and develop highly qualified teachers. The Department of Education  (Education) administers Title II and is responsible for oversight of states’  implementation of NCLBA.
Given the need for states and districts to meet the requirement for highly  qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-06 school year, you asked us to  determine what they were doing to have their teachers meet the  requirement. Specifically, this report focuses on the (1) number of  teachers who met the highly qualified teacher criteria during the   2002-03 school year, (2) conditions that hinder states’ and districts’ ability  to meet the requirement, and (3) activities on which states and districts  were planning to spend their Title II funds.
In conducting our work, we surveyed 50 states and the District of  Columbia. We obtained responses for 37 of these 51 surveys and reported  the results as representing only those that responded. The student  enrollment for the responding states represented 85 percent of total  student population in kindergarten through 12th grade. In addition, we  surveyed a nationally representative sample of 830 school districts. We  received a response from 511 or 62 percent. We compared relevant  characteristics of these respondents to the universe of districts and found  them to be similar, which along with the response rate allowed us to  report national estimates. For our comparisons of high- and low-poverty  districts, we included responding districts that had 70 percent or more of  their students approved for free and reduced-price meals as high-poverty  and those with 30 percent or less of their students approved for free and  reduced-price meals as low-poverty. We visited and interviewed officials in  8 states selected with a range of characteristics that might affect their  ability to meet the requirement—California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa,  Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, and Wyoming. We visited 2 districts  in each of the states and 1 school in each district. We interviewed U.S.  Department of Education officials, and officials from professional  organizations and unions that represent teachers. Additionally, we  analyzed the legislation, related reports, and relevant documents. See  appendix I for detailed information on the methodology. We conducted  our work from July 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Recently, a body of research has shown that quality teachers are  significant to improving student performance. For example, a 1996 study  by Sanders and Rivers examined the effect of teacher quality on academic  achievement and found that children assigned to effective teachers scored  significantly higher in math than children assigned to ineffective teachers.  Research has also shown that many teachers, especially those in high- poverty and rural districts, were not certified and lacked knowledge of the  subjects they taught. For example, a report from The Education Trust  found that in every subject area, students in high-poverty schools were  more likely than other students to be taught by teachers without even a  minor in the subjects they teach.
States are responsible for developing and administering their education  systems and most have delegated authority for operating schools to local  governments. States and local governments provide most of the money for  public elementary and secondary education. In 2002, Education reported  that 49 percent of the revenue for education was from state sources,   44 percent from local sources, and 7 percent from federal sources.  Therefore, it is mostly state and local funds that are used to cover most of  the major expenses, such as teacher salaries, school buildings, and  transportation. Although the autonomy of districts varies, states are  responsible for monitoring and assisting their districts that, in turn,  monitor and assist their schools.
The federal government plays a limited but important role in education.  The Department of Education’s mission is to ensure equal access to  education and promote educational excellence throughout the nation by,  among other things, supporting state and local educational improvement  efforts, gathering statistics and conducting research, and helping to make  education a national priority. Education provides assistance to help states  understand the provisions or requirements of applicable laws, as well as  overseeing and monitoring how states implement them. With the passage  of the No Child Left Behind Act, on January 8, 2002, the federal  government intensified its focus on teacher quality by establishing a  requirement in the act for teachers across the nation to be “highly  qualified” in every core subject they teach by the end of the 2005-06 school  year.
While the act contains specific criteria for highly qualified teachers by  grade and experience levels, in general, the act requires that teachers:   (1) have a bachelor’s degree, (2) have state certification, and   (3) demonstrate subject area knowledge for each core subject they teach.  Table 1 lists the specific criteria by grade and experience levels as defined  in the act.
For Title II, Part A of the act, Congress appropriated $2.85 billion to the  Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund in fiscal year   2002—about $740 million more than states received in fiscal year   2001 under the previous two programs that it replaced—the Eisenhower  Professional Development and Class Size Reduction programs. The  purpose of the fund is to increase student academic achievement by  providing support for states and districts to implement authorized  activities cited in Title II to help them meet the requirement for highly  qualified teachers. (See apps. II and III for state and district authorized  activities.)
States had to complete an application in order to receive funds. All  applications were due by June 2002, and states received the funds by  August 2002. The funds were to be distributed according to the formula  defined in the act. Specifically, states and districts received an amount  equal to what they received for fiscal year 2001 under the two previous  programs. The additional $740 million was distributed to states and  districts based on the number of families with children ages 5 to 17 who  had incomes below the poverty threshold and the relative population of  children ages 5 to 17. The act requires states to ensure that districts target  funds to those schools that have the highest number of teachers who are  not highly qualified, the largest class sizes, or have been identified as in  need of improvement.
To help states understand and implement the new law, Education took a  number of actions. The department established a Web site, developed an  application package for the formula grant program, issued draft guidance,  and held informational conferences for states and districts. Figure 1  summarizes Education’s assistance to states.
In June 2002, Education issued draft guidance entitled “Improving Teacher  Quality State Grants” which has served as Education’s principle form of  assistance to states. In December of 2002, Education expanded and  modified the draft guidance and issued final regulations on NCLBA that  included some criteria related to the requirement for highly qualified  teachers. Education does not plan to issue a final version of its draft  guidance; instead, the draft includes the statement that it “should be  viewed as a living document” that will be updated (1) as new questions  arise, (2) if there is a change in the program statute that requires  modification, or (3) when Education determines that more information  would be helpful.
section_title: Many States Were Uncertain about Numbers of Highly Qualified Teachers
paragraphs: In-depth discussions with officials in 8 states revealed that they could not  determine the number of highly qualified teachers with accuracy because  of one or more factors. All state officials said they did not know the  criteria for some of their teachers because Education’s draft guidance  changed and was not complete. Officials also did not have all the  information they needed to develop methods to evaluate subject area  knowledge for their current teachers. Accordingly, officials in all of the  states interviewed and nearly all surveyed said they needed complete and  clear guidance before they could comply with the law. Most of the states  we visited also did not have data systems that could track teacher  qualifications by core subject taught, which they would have to do to  ensure that teachers were teaching only those subjects for which they had  demonstrated subject area knowledge. Finally, many state officials we  visited were reluctant to say that their certified teachers might not be  highly qualified.
subsections: section_title: States Did Not Have Complete or Consistent Criteria to Determine the Number of Highly Qualified Teachers
paragraphs: During our review, Education changed its criteria for teachers who were  in alternative certification programs and it reissued the draft guidance to  qualify only teachers in certain programs. The revised draft guidance  stated that only those teachers enrolled in alternative certification  programs with specific elements, such as teacher mentors, would be  considered highly qualified. As a result, state officials had to recount this  group of teachers by determining which alternative certification programs  met the standard and then which teachers participated in those programs.  In one state we visited, there were about 9,000 teachers in alternative  certification programs and all were considered highly qualified until the  revised draft guidance was issued. As of May 2003, an official said she was  still trying to determine the number of teachers who were highly qualified.
Also during our review, state officials were uncertain about the criteria for  special education teachers. The draft guidance that was available during  most of our visits did not address special education teachers. As a result,  state officials could not know, for example, whether a special education  teacher teaching math and reading would have to demonstrate subject  area knowledge in both or neither of the subjects. For school year   1999-2000, special education teachers represented about 11 percent of the  national teacher population, so that, on average, state officials were  unable to determine whether at least a tenth of their teachers met the  highly qualified criteria. In some districts, special education teachers  represented a larger portion of the workforce. For example, in one high- poverty urban district that we visited, special education teachers were   21 percent of their teachers. Education issued final Title I regulations on  December 2, 2002, with an appendix that discussed the highly qualified  requirements for special education teachers, among other things.  However, the requirements are not discussed in the federal regulations nor  are they discussed in the Title II draft guidance that was issued December  19, 2002. In addition, as of March 2003 some officials still had questions  about the requirements. Perhaps because the guidance was issued in an  appendix, it was not given the prominence needed to ensure that all  officials would be aware of the information.
Furthermore, neither Education’s draft guidance nor its regulations  provided more information than the law to help state officials develop  methods other than tests to evaluate their current teachers’ subject area  knowledge. The law allows states to use a “high, objective uniform state  standard of evaluation” instead of a test. Education’s draft guidance  repeated the language of the law, but provided no further interpretation. In  addition, Education officials said they would review states’  implementation of this provision when they conduct compliance reviews  and then determine if the state evaluation is in compliance with the law.  State officials said they needed more information, such as examples, to be  confident of what Education would consider adequate for compliance with  the law. State officials prefer evaluations instead of tests, according to an  official at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), because  they expect evaluations to be less expensive, more flexible, and more  acceptable to teachers and unions. Such evaluations might be done  through classroom observations, examination of portfolios, and peer  reviews. In March 2003, CCSSO held a conference attended by about   25 state officials and several Education officials to discuss the  implementation of state evaluations. At that conference, state officials said  Education’s lack of specificity was particularly a problem for evaluating  middle and high school teachers who had not demonstrated subject area  knowledge. According to our survey data, 23 of 37 state officials said they  would have difficulty fulfilling the highly qualified requirement for middle  school teachers and 14 anticipated difficulty for high school teachers.  According to district survey results, 20 percent anticipated difficulties in  meeting the federal criteria for middle school teachers and 24 percent for  high school teachers. Furthermore, as table 2 shows, a significantly higher  percentage of high-poverty districts reported they would have greater  difficulty fulfilling the requirement for teachers, especially at the middle  and high school levels, than would low-poverty districts.
State officials from the 8 states we visited said they could not determine  the number of highly qualified teachers because the draft guidance was  changing, not clear, or incomplete. Most, 32 of 37, state officials  responding to our survey said they needed clear and timely guidance to  help them meet the law.
section_title: State Data Systems Did Not Track Federal Criteria
paragraphs: Officials from 7 of the 8 states we visited told us they did not have data  systems that would allow them to track teachers’ qualifications according  to the federal criteria by every subject taught. Officials in one state  projected that it would take at least 2 years before the state could develop  and implement a system to track teachers by the federal criteria. State  officials we visited said since their state certifications had not required  some teachers to demonstrate subject area knowledge as required in the  federal criteria, their information systems did not track such information.  In written comments to our survey, for example, one official said,  “Questions  are impossible to answer at this  point because we not have finished the identification of those who need to  be tested or evaluated.” Another respondent wrote that the data system  “was designed years ago for state certification purposes… has not yet  been updated to include all NCLBA criteria for teachers.” Other state  officials also told us during our visits and through survey comments that  their state certifications did not always require teachers to demonstrate  subject area knowledge, so they did not have information on many  teachers’ qualifications for this criteria. Another state official wrote, “  do not have data on teachers who were grand fathered in before 1991 or  from out of state… who do not have subject matter competency.” Given  the cost and time they thought it would take, some state officials  expressed reservations about changing their data systems before  Education provided complete guidance.
section_title: Some State Officials Reluctant to Report Teachers Not Highly Qualified
paragraphs: Officials in 6 of the 8 states visited were reluctant to report their certified  teachers might not be highly qualified. Three of these officials equated  their state certification with the federal criteria for a highly qualified  teacher even though they differed. They expressed a reluctance to say that  their state certification requirements did not produce a highly qualified  teacher even though the requirements did not match all the federal  criteria, such as demonstration of subject area knowledge. Additionally,  state officials expressed concern about the morale of teachers who are  state certified but who would not meet the federal criteria. They were also  concerned about how teachers and unions would react to testing already  certified teachers. For example, in 5 states we visited officials told us that  the unions in these states objected to the testing of certified teachers.
section_title: State and District Officials Reported Many Conditions as Hindrances to Meeting the Law
paragraphs: Many state officials responding to our survey reported that teacher salary  issues and teacher shortages were hindrances. State officials also  identified other conditions such as few programs to support new teachers,  lack of principal leadership, teacher training, and union agreements.  District officials also cited teacher salary and teacher development issues  as conditions that hindered them. Our district survey also shows that  significantly more high-poverty districts reported some conditions as  hindrances than low-poverty districts, and rural districts officials we  visited cited hindrances specific to their small size and isolated locations.  In our state survey, officials indicated that they needed more information  from Education on professional development programs, best practices,  and developing incentives for teachers to teach in high-poverty schools.
subsections: section_title: State Officials Cited Several Problems as Hindrances
paragraphs: Many state officials responding to our survey reported that pay issues  hindered their ability to meet the requirement to have all highly qualified  teachers. These issues included low salaries, lack of incentive pay  programs, and a lack of career ladders for teachers. For example,   32 of 37 state respondents said low teachers’ salaries compared to other  occupations was a hindrance. Officials we visited said that because of the  low salaries it has been more difficult to recruit and retain some highly  qualified teachers, especially math and science teachers. Several  occupations are open to people with a bachelor’s degree in math and  science, such as computer scientists and geologists. During the late   1990s, there was an increase in demand for workers with math and science  backgrounds, especially in information technology occupations. Between  1994 and 2001, the number of workers employed in the mathematical and  computer sciences increased by about 77 percent while the number of  teachers increased by about 28 percent and total employment increased by  about 14 percent. Furthermore, the math and science occupations have  generally paid higher salaries than teaching positions. The U.S.  Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate that in   2001 average weekly earnings was $1,074 for mathematical and computer  scientist positions and $730 for teachers. Some research shows that  teacher salary is only one of many factors that influence teacher  recruitment and retention. For example, the American Association of  School Administrators explained the relationship between pay and  working conditions in a report on higher pay in hard-to-staff schools. The  report stated “How money matters becomes much clearer if salary is  viewed as just one of many factors that employees weigh when assessing  the relative attractiveness of any particular job, such as opportunities for  advancement, difficulty of the job, physical working conditions, length of  commute, flexibility of working hours, and demands on personal time.  Adjusting the salaries upward can compensate for less appealing aspects  of a job; conversely, improving the relative attractiveness of jobs can  compensate for lower salaries.”
Many state survey respondents also cited teacher shortages as a  hindrance. Specifically, 23 of the 37 state officials reported teacher  shortages in high-need subject areas—such as, math, science, and special  education. Additionally, 12 state officials reported a shortage in the  number of new highly qualified teachers in subject areas that are not high  need, and 12 reported that having few alternative certification programs  hindered their efforts. Education experts have debated the causes and  effects of teacher shortages. Some experts argue that the problem is not in  the number of teachers in the pool of applicants but in their distribution  across the country. Others argue that poor retention is the real cause of  teacher shortages. As for alternative certification programs, they were  established to help overcome teacher shortages by offering other avenues  for people to enter the teaching profession. However, in 1 state we visited  officials said the success of these programs had been mixed because the  content and length of the programs varied and some alternative  certification teachers were better prepared than others.
Although states have been facing teacher shortages in some subject areas  for years, the new requirement for highly qualified teachers could make it  even more difficult to fulfill the demand for teachers. The new law  requires states to ensure that teachers only teach subjects for which they  have taken a rigorous state test or evaluation, completed an academic  major or graduate degree, finished course work equivalent to such  degrees, or obtained advanced certification or credentialing in the  subjects. Previously, states allowed teachers to teach subjects without  such course work or credentials. From its Schools and Staffing Survey,  the National Center for Education Statistics, within the Department of  Education, reported that in 1999-2000, 14 to 22 percent of students in  middle grades and 5 to 10 percent of high school students taking English,  math, and science were in classes taught by teachers without a major,  minor, or certification in the subjects they taught. Also, the report  indicated that in the high school grades, 17 percent of students enrolled in  physics and 36 percent enrolled in geology/earth/space science classes  were taught by out-of-field teachers.
Some states also cited several other conditions that might hinder their  ability to meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers. For example,  13 of the 37 state respondents reported few programs to support new  teachers, and 9 reported large classes as hindrances. State respondents  also cited work environment factors such as teacher performance  assessments, a lack of principal leadership, and lack of school supplies  and equipment as hindrances. See table 3 for more information on  hindrances reported by state officials.
Additionally, 7 state officials who responded to our survey cited union  agreements as a hindrance. Officials in 5 states that we visited said that the  teachers’ unions objected to testing currently certified teachers for subject  area knowledge, and officials in 2 of these states also said that current  teachers might leave rather than take a test. An official representing the  American Federation of Teachers (AFT), an organization that represents  teachers, school support staff, higher education faculty and staff, among  others, said that AFT supports the federal definition for highly qualified  teachers and incentive pay for teachers in high-need subject areas and that  certified teachers should have a choice between taking a test and having a  state evaluation to determine subject area knowledge. The National  Education Association, an organization with members who work at every  level of education, issued an analysis of the NCLBA that identified several  changes it believes should be made in the law, including clarifying the  requirement for highly qualified teachers. The union officials we spoke  with from 2 states we visited said they also support the requirement for  highly qualified teachers but expressed concerns about how their states  would implement the legislation. One state union official said the current  state process for certification requires multiple tests—more than is  required in the legislation—and the union is concerned that the state will  collapse the testing and streamline the teacher preparation process as part  of its changes to meet the requirement. The union official from the other  state said that his union was concerned because the state’s approach for  implementing the requirement for highly qualified teachers has become a  moving target and this causes frustration for teachers.
section_title: School Districts Reported Hindrances Similar to Those Reported by States and More High-Poverty Districts Reported Certain Hindrances
paragraphs: School district estimates from our survey show that, similar to state  respondents, salary issues hinder districts’ efforts to meet the requirement  for highly qualified teachers. Almost 60 percent of district officials cited  low teacher salaries compared to other occupations as a hindrance, with a  significantly higher number of high-poverty than low-poverty district  officials reporting this as a hindrance. During our site visits to 4 rural  districts, officials said that their salaries could not compete with salaries  offered in other occupations and locations. One official said that pay in the  rural districts was low compared to teacher salaries in surrounding states.  Both state and district officials also said that these salary conditions affect  the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers.
Our survey estimates also show that conditions related to teacher  development were hindering districts’ ability to meet the highly qualified  teacher requirement. The conditions reported by districts included   (1) weak training for teachers in the use of technology (28 percent),   (2) few alternative certification programs (18 percent), and   (3) professional development programs that are not of sufficient duration  to improve teacher quality (23 percent). Weak training programs can leave  teachers unprepared to deal with all the challenges of teaching and lead to  job dissatisfaction. Table 4 provides estimates of the percentages of  districts reporting conditions that hinder their ability to meet the  requirement for highly qualified teachers.
While the ranking of most of the hindrances reported by districts and  states were similar, three conditions were reported among the top third of  hindrances for districts but among the bottom third for states. Specifically,  these conditions were (1) alternative certification programs do not provide  teachers with adequate teaching skills, (2) teacher preparation programs  do not provide teachers with adequate subject matter expertise, and   (3) training for teachers in the use of technology is weak. The first two of  these conditions relate to programs that are usually responsibilities of the  state departments of education. States or districts can address the third  condition, technology training. These conditions indicate areas in which  states and districts can work together to improve programs and help meet  the requirement for highly qualified teachers.
A significantly higher number of high-poverty districts than low-poverty  districts identified some conditions as hindrances. As table 5 shows, in  addition to teacher shortages and pay issues, a larger percentage of high- poverty districts cited few programs to support new teachers and few  alternative certification programs, among others, as hindrances to meeting  the requirement.
During our site visits, officials from high-poverty districts told us they had  great difficulty retaining teachers. For example, officials in one district  said that although the district provided training for new teachers in the  skills they needed, these teachers became more marketable after they  completed the training and often left for higher paying teaching positions.  According to these officials, the schools in this district did not always  benefit from the district’s training programs. High-poverty district officials  also said they could not compete with surrounding, wealthier districts in  teacher pay. Officials in these districts and at the American Association of  School Administrators also said that some unions do not support the use  of incentive pay for high-poverty schools because they believe that salary  scales should be equal for all schools within a district.
Rural district officials we visited and also those who provided survey  comments said they faced unusual hindrances because some of them were  very small, isolated, or had only one or two teachers in total at some  schools. During our site visits, some officials from rural districts also said  that they were facing teacher shortages because not enough teachers were  willing to teach in rural districts. For example, one official in a large, rural  state said that the state had only one university, which makes it difficult  for teachers to obtain further course work to meet the federal criteria for  subject area knowledge. Since many teachers in this state’s rural districts  had to teach more than one core subject, with limited access to subject  area training, they may not meet the highly qualified criteria for all  subjects they teach. One survey respondent also wrote, “Rural schools  have to assign teachers to several subject areas at  secondary level.  We do not have large numbers of students, and teachers have to wear  more than one hat. Rural schools are also a long way from colleges and to  require licensure in every subject they teach is ludicrous.” In a 2001 report  to Congress, Education estimated that 84 percent of 4-year institutions  would offer distance education courses in 2002. Such courses may help  address this hindrance.
section_title: States Say They Need More Information from Education and Education Plans to Work with States on Some Issues
paragraphs: As districts work to address the conditions that affect their ability to meet  the new federal requirement, they look to their state officials for guidance  and technical assistance. In turn, states look to Education for help. Many  of the hindrances that state and district officials reported related to  conditions that they could address such as teachers’ salaries, the number  of alternative certification programs, and certification requirements.  However, states indicated they needed some additional information and  assistance from Education. At least half of the 37 state respondents  reported needing (1) information or other assistance to meet the  requirement that professional development programs be based on recent  scientific research and be of sufficient duration to have an effect on  teacher quality, (2) information on best practices in the area of teacher  quality, and (3) assistance in developing incentives for teachers to teach in  high-poverty schools. Education’s 2002-07 strategic plan identifies several  steps it will take to work with states. Specifically, the strategies listed  under the plan’s goal for improving teacher and principal quality include  supporting professional development in research-based instruction and  encouraging innovative teacher compensation and accountability systems.  Additionally, in December 2002, Education reorganized and established a  new office to administer the Title II program.
section_title: To Help Teachers Meet the Requirement States Planned to Spend Most Title II Funds on Professional Development Activities, and Districts Will Spend Most on Recruitment and Retention Activities
paragraphs: To help meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers, state officials  planned to spend most of their Title II funds on professional development  activities, and district officials planned to spend a majority of their Title II  funds on recruitment and retention activities. State and district officials  planned to spend much larger amounts of other federal, state, and local  funds than Title II funds on the activities authorized in the act. Generally,  state and district officials told us they were continuing activities from  previous years. The survey data also indicated high-poverty districts relied  more on Title II funds for recruitment and retention activities than low- poverty districts. In addition, while the act requires districts to target their  Title II funds to schools that meet certain criteria, until district officials  know the number of highly qualified teachers and where they are located,  they cannot fully comply with this requirement.
subsections: section_title: States Planned to Spend the Majority of Title II Funds on Professional Development
paragraphs: Generally, state educational agencies could use up to 2.5 percent of the  state’s Title II funds for authorized state activities.  Twenty-four state  officials responding to our survey planned to spend about 65 percent of  their Title II funds on professional development activities to develop and  support highly qualified teachers and principals. For example, professional  development activities could help teachers enhance their subject area  knowledge and complete state licensing requirements to meet the criteria  for highly qualified teachers. During our site visits, state officials described  their professional development activities as seminars, conferences, and  various instructional initiatives. For example, in one state we visited,  officials planned to hold a workshop to provide middle and high school  math teachers with technology training so that they could incorporate  interactive Web sites in their instruction. Generally, state officials said  they planned to use Title II funds to continue activities that were begun in  previous years.
While professional development activities were to receive the largest share  of funds, survey results show state officials planned to also spend Title II  funds on other activities cited in the act. Officials in 28 states planned to  spend about 18 percent on technical assistance activities, such as  providing information about the requirement for highly qualified teachers  to districts via the state Web site. Certification activities received the  smallest percentage of Title II funds–2 percent. These activities include  efforts to promote certification reciprocity with other states and efforts to  establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for certification. (See fig.  2.)
section_title: Title II Funds Are a Small Part of Total Funds
paragraphs: State officials reported they planned to spend much larger amounts of  other federal and state funds than Title II funds on nearly all of the  authorized Title II activities. For example, states reported that 85 percent  of the total funds they planned to spend on professional development  activities would come from other federal and state funds. The one  exception was technical assistance activities, where Title II funds  accounted for 77 percent of the total. (See fig. 3.) Providing technical  assistance to districts is an important role for states. In our visits to  districts, several officials said they needed more information and technical  assistance from their state to understand and implement the law.
section_title: Districts Planned to Spend a Majority of Their Title II Funds on Recruitment and Retention Activities
paragraphs: Districts received about 95 percent of their state’s Title II funds for  authorized activities. Based on our survey, district officials planned to  spend an estimated 66 percent of their Title II funds on recruitment and  retention activities and 34 percent on activities related to professional  development. Class size reduction activities were the largest funded  recruitment and retention activity and accounted for 56 percent of total  Title II funds. In a majority of our site visits we learned that district  officials used these funds to hire additional highly qualified teachers to  continue activities developed under the previous Class Size Reduction  Program. Class size reduction activities may help improve teacher  retention because, according to an Education report, teachers in small  classes spend less time on classroom management and more time  providing instruction, thus raising the teacher’s level of job satisfaction.  While class size reduction activities can be seen as a retention tool, they  may also increase the number of highly qualified teachers that need to be  hired. This may be a problem for some districts and states. In fact, officials  in one large state we visited said class size reduction activities presented a  challenge by increasing the number of classes not being taught by a highly  qualified teacher.
Additionally, district officials in our site visits said that they implemented  or planned to implement a broad range of professional development  activities. For example, one district had a teacher-coach program for its  math and science teachers. This program used senior teachers as full-time  coaches to assist less experienced teachers with instructional strategies  and curriculum preparation. Other programs focused on math and reading,  varied instructional strategies for different types of students, and use of  technology. District officials in our site visits said most activities were in  place prior to the act.
While all districts spent more on recruitment and retention activities than  professional development, there were differences between high- and low- poverty districts. From our survey, we estimate that high-poverty districts  planned to spend a significantly larger percentage of Title II funds on  recruitment and retention and a smaller percentage on professional  development activities than low-poverty districts. (See table 6.)
section_title: Districts Planned to Spend Larger Amounts of Other Funds and Title II Funds Are a Larger Percentage of Total for High-Poverty Districts
paragraphs: From our survey, we estimated all districts planned to spend much larger  percentages of other federal, state, and local funds than Title II funds on  authorized activities but in high-poverty districts the share of the funds  was lower. Overall, 80 percent of the total funds districts planned to spend  on professional development activities came from other federal, state, and  local funds. Title II funds represented a larger percentage of total funds  spent on authorized activities for high-poverty districts than low-poverty  districts. For example, in high-poverty districts Title II funds were   48 percent of the funds they planned to spend for recruitment and  retention activities compared to 15 percent in low-poverty districts. There  may be several reasons for these differences. For example, Title II  allocated more funds to those districts with more high-poverty families,  and low-poverty districts may have had more local funds to contribute to  the total. Figure 4 shows the Title II percentage of total funds for  professional development activities and recruitment and retention  activities, for all, high-poverty, and low-poverty districts. A majority of  district officials said they planned to fund activities that were begun in  previous years.
section_title: Approximately One-Third of All Districts Were Targeting Funds
paragraphs: We estimated about one-third of all districts (34 percent) were targeting  their Title II funds as required by the act. The act requires districts to  target funds to those schools (1) with the highest number of teachers who  are not highly qualified, (2) with the largest class sizes, or (3) in need of  improvement. There was little difference between the percentages of high-  and low-poverty districts that targeted their funds or between urban and  rural districts. For example, 29 percent of high-poverty districts and   30 percent of low-poverty districts reported targeting some of their Title II  funds. Additionally, some district officials we visited said they did not  target funds according to the criteria listed in the act but that they targeted  funds in other ways such as to support math and science programs for  teachers and for administrative leadership programs. It may be too early  for district officials to fully implement this targeting requirement. Until  they know the true number of teachers who are highly qualified, they  cannot target the schools with the highest numbers of teachers who are  not highly qualified.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Education officials have had to interpret and help states implement many  new requirements established by the NCLBA, including the highly qualified  teacher requirement. During this first year of implementation, state  officials were still determining how they could assess whether their  teachers met all the criteria and identifying steps they needed to take to  meet the new requirement. Generally, state and district officials continued  to be challenged by many longstanding hindrances and they continued to  fund activities from previous years.
Education issued regulations and draft guidance to help states begin to  implement the requirement for highly qualified teachers and has plans to  help states with some of their challenges. However, state officials need  more assistance from Education, especially about methods to evaluate  current teachers’ subject area knowledge. Without this information state  officials are unsure how to assess whether their current teachers meet the  highly qualified requirement. This would also help them  accurately  determine the number of teachers who are highly qualified and take  appropriate steps, such as deciding on which activities to spend Title II  funds and targeting Title II funds to schools with the highest numbers of  teachers who are not highly qualified. It is important that states have the  information they need as soon as possible in order to take all necessary  actions to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified by the 2005-06  deadline.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to assist states’ efforts to determine the number of highly qualified  teachers they have and the actions they need to take to meet the  requirement for highly qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-06 school  year, we recommend that the Secretary of Education provide more  information to states. Specifically, information is needed about methods to  evaluate subject area knowledge of current teachers.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments on a draft of this report from Education.   These comments are reprinted in appendix IV. In response to our  recommendation related to requirements for special education teachers,  Education stated that the appendix of the Title I Final Regulations clarifies  how the highly qualified requirements apply to special education teachers.   Consequently, we modified the report to reflect this information and we  withdrew this recommendation.
Education indicated it plans to take steps to address our recommendation  on the need for information about methods to evaluate subject area  knowledge of current teachers. Education stated that it will continue to  work with state officials and will actively share promising strategies and  models for “high objective uniform State standard of evaluation” with  states to help them develop ways for teachers to demonstrate subject area  competency.
Also, Education commented that it views a “one–size fits all” approach to  addressing many of the issues raised in the report as undesirable because  states and districts will have to meet the requirement highly qualified  teachers in a manner that is compatible with their teacher certification,  assessment and data collection processes. Education stated that it will  provide assistance wherever possible to help states meet the requirement.  We generally agree that this is an appropriate approach.
Additionally, Education provided technical comments and we made  changes as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.  Copies will be made available to other interested parties upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report, please  call me at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: In conducting our work, we administered a Web survey to the 50 states  and the District of Columbia, and a separate Web survey to a nationally  representative sample of 830 school districts, that included strata for high- poverty, low-poverty, rural, and urban districts. The response rate for the  state survey was 71 percent and for the district survey 62 percent. The  surveys were conducted between December 4, 2002, and April 4, 2003. We  analyzed the survey data and identified significant results. See figure 5 for  a geographic display of responding and nonresponding states.
The study population for the district survey consisted of public school  districts contained in the Department of Education’s Core of Common  Data (CCD) Local Education Agency (LEA) file for the 2000-2001 school  year. From this, we identified a population of 14,503 school districts in the  50 states and the District of Columbia.
Sample Design. The sample design for this survey was a stratified sample  of 830 LEAs in the study population. This sample included the 100 largest  districts and a stratified sample of the remaining districts with strata  defined by community type (city, urban, and rural) and by the district’s  poverty level. Table 7 summarizes the population, sample sizes, and  response rates by stratum.
Estimates. All estimates produced from the district sample in this report  are for a target population defined as all public school districts in the   50 states and the District of Columbia for the 2002-03 school year.  Estimates to this target population were formed by weighting the survey  data to account for both the sample design and the response rates for each  stratum. For our estimates of high- and low-poverty districts, we defined  high-poverty districts as those with participation rates in the free and  reduced meals program of 70 percent or above. Low-poverty districts were  defined as those with free and reduced meals program rates at 30 percent  and below. One of the advantages of this approach was that it allowed for  a sufficient number of cases in each category to conduct statistical  analyses.
Sampling Error. Because we surveyed a sample of school districts, our  results are estimates of a population of school districts and thus are  subject to sampling errors that are associated with samples of this size and  type. Our confidence in the precision of the results from this sample is  expressed in 95 percent confidence intervals. The 95 percent confidence  intervals are expected to include the actual results for 95 percent of the  samples of this type. We calculated confidence intervals for our study  results using methods that are appropriate for a stratified, probability  sample. For the percentages presented in this report, we are 95 percent  confident that the results we would have obtained if we had studied the  entire study population are within plus or minus 10 percentage points of  our results, unless otherwise noted. For example, we estimate that   34 percent of the districts target at least some funds to specific types of  schools. The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate would be no  wider than plus or minus 10 percent, or from 24 percent to 44 percent.
Nonsampling Error. In addition to these sampling errors, the practical  difficulties in conducting surveys of this type may introduce other types of  errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,  questions may be misinterpreted, the respondents’ answers may differ  from those of districts that did not respond, or errors could be made in  keying questionnaire data. We took several steps to reduce these errors.
To minimize some of these errors, the state and district questionnaires  were each pretested three times to ensure that respondents would  understand the questions and that answers could be provided. To increase  the response rate, sampled districts received two calls encouraging them  to complete and return the questionnaire.
We also performed an analysis to determine whether some sample-based  estimates compared favorably with known population values. We  performed this analysis for 12 estimates providing information on  students, teachers, number of schools, and administrators that covered  major segments those groups. For example, we did an analysis on all full- time equivalent classroom teachers but not on teachers of ungraded  students, which is a very small proportion of all teachers. We used these  values for the 511 sample respondents to produce sample estimates to the  total population of all 14,503 districts. These estimated values, their  associated 95 percent confidence intervals, and their true population  values are presented in table 8.
For 11 out of the 12 estimates we examined, the population value falls  within the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimate, thus providing  some indication that respondents to this survey reflect the   12 characteristics we examined in the population. Although these  characteristics were selected because they might be related to other  characteristics of district teachers and district administration, we do not  know the extent to which the survey respondents would reflect the  population characteristics for the specific questions asked on our survey.  For example, we are not certain whether districts responding to the survey  were further along in the implementation of Title II requirements than the  districts that did not respond.
Our sample was not designed to produce geographical area estimates, and  we did not explicitly stratify our sample by state or region. However, our  sample was selected nationally and all regions are represented in our  sample. The following table summarizes sample size and responses for   10 regions.
On the basis of the national distribution of our sample and on the result of  our comparison of a set of survey estimates to known population values  from the CCD file, we chose to include the survey results in our report and  to produce sample based estimates to the total population of school  districts in our study population.
We chose not to report the survey responses to questions asking about the  number of highly qualified teachers because other information from the  survey and our in-depth discussions with officials during our site visits  indicated that the respondents could not accurately answer the question.  For example, three of five officials who completed the survey but did not  answer this question commented in the survey that they could not answer  because they could not count the number of teachers. Additionally, one  official who reported that 100 percent of the teachers were highly qualified  and another who reported 94 percent, also commented that they were  unable to count their teachers. During our site visits we learned that  officials did not have know the criteria for some groups of teachers, did  not have data systems to allow them to track teachers by class and  therefore, could not accurately determine how many teachers were highly  qualified.
subsections: section_title: Other Methodology
paragraphs: We also visited 8 states with a range of characteristics that might affect  their meeting Title II requirement for highly qualified teachers. Those  states were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, North  Carolina, Delaware, and Wyoming. We visited and interviewed officials in  2 districts in each state, one of which was a high-poverty district, and one  school in each district. We interviewed Department of Education officials,  and officials and representatives from several professional organizations.  We also reviewed the legislation, the regulations, and guidance as well as  related reports and other relevant documents. We conducted our work  between July 2002 and May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Activities on Which States Can Spend Title II, Part A Funds
paragraphs: Table 10 lists our summaries of the authorized activities on which states  can spend Title II funds and shows the five categories we used to group  them.
section_title: Appendix III: Activities on Which Districts Can Spend Title II, Part A Funds
paragraphs: Table 11 lists our summaries of the authorized activities on which districts  can spend Title II funds and shows the two categories we used to group  them.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, the following individuals made  important contributions to this report: Susan Higgins, Anjali Tekchandani,  David Garten, Joel Grossman, Richard Kelley, Mark Ramage, Minnette  Richardson, Susan Bernstein, and Jeff Edmondson.