Troops-To-Teachers: Program Brings More Men and Minorities to the Teaching Workforce, but Education Could Improve Management to Enhance Results
Published: 2006-03-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: With the 2002 enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), GAO was mandated to review the Troops-to-Teachers program, which provides financial assistance and counseling to help military personnel obtain their teacher licenses, especially in priority subject areas, such as math and science, and find employment in high-need districts and schools, as well as public charter schools. The U.S. Department of Education oversees the program, which received nearly $15 million in fiscal year 2004. This report identifies (1) the number and characteristics of program participants and factors affecting participation; (2) the recruitment and retention of participants in high-need districts and priority subject areas; and (3) the steps Education has taken to facilitate program management.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The 3,875 troops who were documented as having been hired through the program between the enactment of NCLBA in 2002 and June 30, 2005--the close of the 2004-2005 school year--contributed to gender and racial diversity in the teaching workforce. Over 80 percent of Troops teachers are male and over 25 percent are African American--characteristics that differ from the new teacher population overall. However, participation has recently decreased and hiring has been geographically concentrated. The majority of the program's teachers hired from school years 2001-2002 through 2004-2005 were employed in seven states. Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, were placed in districts designated as high-need on the basis of serving children who qualify for federal assistance. About 90 percent of these funded participants continued teaching in high-need districts during their second year, and over 75 percent of the original group taught in high-need districts for a third year. About one-third of Troops hired during this period reported teaching in the priority areas of math, science, special education, or vocational education. Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but has not effectively coordinated resources with another teacher recruitment program also targeting military personnel. While Education has developed a draft work plan for Troops-to-Teachers and improved the definition of a high-need district for eligibility purposes, it has not assessed the data it uses to make high-need school determinations. Further, it disbanded a teacher policy group that once provided a forum for department managers to discuss recruitment and retention initiatives.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Approximately 3 million teachers work in public and private elementary  and secondary schools across the country, but school districts still face  difficulty recruiting and retaining highly qualified teaching professionals.  In 1992, when the shortage of math and science teachers was increasing  and the military forces were undergoing a significant reduction in  personnel, Congress authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to  oversee a new national Troops-to-Teachers program designed to help  separated members of the military obtain their teaching credentials and  teach in school districts with large low-income populations and a shortage  of teachers in priority subject areas, such as math and science. Since  Troops-to-Teachers’ inception, more than 8,400 program participants  reported that they were hired as elementary and secondary school  teachers, with about half of those entering the profession since 2002.
Funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program has varied over time. In fiscal  year 2003, the program received a $29 million appropriation, while more  recently, in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the appropriation held steady at  nearly $15 million. Each year, some funds obligated to Troops-to-Teachers  are used to provide direct financial assistance in the form of stipends and  bonuses to attract and retain participants. Dollars not allocated toward  financial assistance fund (1) the centralized administration of the program  by personnel in the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education  Support (DANTES)—a DOD unit that operates the program and provides  members of the military with services, such as education-related  counseling and distance learning courses—and (2) the local counseling  and placement assistance that Troops-to-Teachers’ state placement  assistance offices provide.
In 1999, Congress reauthorized the Troops-to-Teachers program and  transferred program oversight from DOD to the Department of Education  (Education), effective in 2000. Through a memorandum of agreement  between DOD and Education, DANTES continues daily program  administration—registering individuals, identifying high-need schools and  districts, and making determinations about who qualifies for bonuses and  stipends—while Education, rather than DOD, has responsibility for  program oversight and management. In that same year, Congress  mandated that GAO conduct an assessment of the program’s  accomplishments from fiscal years 1994 through 2000. We concluded that  the main focus of the program had shifted from an outplacement resource  for separated military personnel to a recruitment tool to address teacher  shortages. The report also concluded that opportunities existed for  Education to integrate the program into its overall teacher recruitment  and retention initiatives, which included efforts to assist both civilian and  military mid-career professionals become teachers. The 2002 enactment of  the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) reauthorized the program and its  funding through 2007, increased the total amount that could be spent on  state placement assistance services, and mandated a second GAO report.  To address the NCLBA mandate, this report answers the following  questions:  1. What are the number and characteristics of program participants, and  what factors affect participation?  2. To what extent have participants been recruited and retained to teach in  high-need districts and priority subject areas?  3. What steps has Education taken to facilitate program management?
To conduct our work, we analyzed data that DANTES maintains on all  individuals who have registered for the program, focusing specifically on  those who have received funding between the enactment of NCLBA on  January 8, 2002, and June 30, 2005, which marks the end of the 2004-2005  school year. For this population, we analyzed demographic and financial  assistance data, as well as information on the schools and subject areas in  which the teachers became employed. To assess the reliability of school  placement data, we matched the data DANTES provided to data from  Education’s National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of  Data, which includes district and school-level information on free and  reduced price meal eligibility, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area  Income and Poverty Estimates program, which includes district-level  information on poverty. In addition, of the 30 funded Troops-to-Teachers  placement assistance offices, we contacted personnel from 7 to obtain the  perspectives of those helping both large and small numbers of troops find  employment through the program. We also interviewed Education officials  to discuss their management of the program and to assess program  practices against GAO standards for internal controls, which establish a  framework for effective agency operations. Further, we interviewed  officials at DANTES and reviewed the results from a recent survey of  program participants conducted by the National Center for Education  Information—a private, non-partisan research organization specializing in  survey research and data analysis. We also spoke with several researchers  in the field of teacher recruitment, preparation, and professional  development, and reviewed related reports on these topics. We assessed  the reliability of all data elements used in the report and determined that  the data were sufficient and reliable for the purposes of our study. We  conducted our work between May 2005 and January 2006 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed  discussion of our scope and methodology appears in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: According to Education, about 300,000 individuals obtain teaching  certifications each year and the career path generally begins by enrolling  in either a traditional or an alternative certification program, typically  provided by a 4-year institution of higher education. Programs are  considered “traditional” when they combine subject matter instruction,  training on how to manage a classroom, and field experience, or  “alternative” when they enroll individuals who already have the subject  matter knowledge and focus instead on classroom management and  exposure to real-life teaching and learning conditions. Based on Education  data, 46 states reported implementing alternative routes to certification,  and about 35,000 individuals each year obtain their teaching credentials  through alternative programs. According to Education, many alternative  certification programs are designed to recruit teachers into shortage areas  such as math, science, and special education or to increase gender and  ethnic diversity in the teaching workforce.
The Troops-to-Teachers program facilitates the entry of former military  personnel into the teaching profession by assessing their academic history  and professional skills and by counseling individuals toward appropriate  programs to obtain certification.
Members and former members of the armed forces are generally eligible to  participate in Troops-to-Teachers if they have a baccalaureate or advanced  degree and meet any of the following four requirements:    They are retired from active or reserve service.    They have an approved date of retirement that is within 1 year after the  date on which the member submits an application to participate in the  program.
They have separated from active duty after 6 or more years of  continuous service and enter into a commitment to continue in the  reserves for at least 3 years.
They are currently serving in the reserves and have at least 10 years of  active or reserve duty and enter into a commitment to continue in the  reserves for at least 3 years.
Eligible members selected to participate in the program must enter into an  agreement to obtain certification or licensing as an elementary, secondary,  or vocational or technical teacher and to become a highly qualified  teacher. In addition, program participants must agree to accept full-time  employment as a teacher for at least 3 years with a high-need school  district or public charter school. NCLBA further requires that in selecting  eligible members of the armed forces to receive assistance under the  program, priority is to be given to members who have educational or  military experience in science, mathematics, special education, or  vocational or technical subjects, and agree to seek employment as science,  mathematics, special education, or vocational education teachers.
Participants in the program may receive stipends of not more than $5,000  to help defray the cost of enrollment in a teaching certification program if  they agree to teach in high-need school districts, defined as those in which  there are specific numbers or percentages of children from families with  incomes below the poverty line, or public charter schools. Participants  may instead receive bonuses of $10,000 if they agree to teach in high-need  schools—defined as those in which the student population meets certain  low-income eligibility criteria or in which large percentages of students  have disabilities—that are also located in high-need districts. As further  clarified by Education in a recent final rule, participants initially receiving  a stipend who agree to teach for at least 3 years in a high-need school  within a high-need school district or a public charter school can receive a  total payment of $10,000 less their stipend payments. Reimbursement  generally is required of the participant under certain circumstances, such  as failing to obtain certification, to become a highly qualified teacher, or to  obtain employment. Individuals who do not meet the criteria for stipends  and bonuses are ineligible for financial assistance, but can still receive  counseling and referral services through the program. Table 1 illustrates  the terms of the financial assistance available.
DANTES administers the Troops-to-Teachers program, working with 30  state placement assistance offices, 6 of which are considered regional  offices because they provide coverage for neighboring states in which  there are no designated Troops-to-Teachers personnel. Each state office is  responsible for recruiting participants through advertisements and face-to- face encounters, assessing participants’ academic transcripts, guiding  them toward the appropriate state certification programs, and providing  placement assistance to direct them to high-need schools or districts and  priority subject areas. According to the program’s authorizing statute, no  more than $5 million per year can be used to establish and maintain these  placement assistance offices, and grants to states for these placement  offices are made at the Secretary of Education’s discretion.
As figure 1 illustrates, many legislative changes made to the Troops-to- Teachers program have affected both the program’s administration and  the identification of schools and districts in which employment makes  servicemembers eligible to receive financial assistance.
With regard to eligibility for financial assistance, the type of school in  which a participant is statutorily required to teach has changed  significantly since the program started. Prior to NCLBA’s reauthorization  of the program, participants were required to teach in a district receiving  Title I funds in order to receive a stipend. Under current requirements,  participants can receive a stipend for teaching in a high-need district or  public charter school and can receive a bonus for teaching in a high-need  school. The definition of a high-need school that was established in the  National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 included a school  that had a dropout rate exceeding the national average or that had a large  percentage of students speaking English as a second language; however,  this definition has changed. Table 2 illustrates the current definitions for  both a high-need school and a high-need district. The table also  incorporates Education’s recent clarification on the definition of a high- need district, which became effective through a final rule in September  2005.
With regard to program administration, legislative shifts have prompted  changes in oversight. DANTES has maintained daily administration of the  program since its inception, but when the statute shifted program  oversight to Education, a memorandum of agreement was needed to  outline the relationship between DANTES, DOD, and Education.  According to the current agreement, which was signed in February 2004,  DANTES’ fiscal and administrative responsibilities—such as facilitating  recruitment activities, selecting participants, managing program  participant files, and overseeing state placement assistance offices— remained intact, but DANTES’ personnel were also expected to provide  Education with an annual performance report, an itemized financial  report, and a program report on key participant characteristics.
According to the agreement, DOD has the following responsibilities:    Transfer funds from Education to DANTES for the administration of  the program.
Assign responsibility for the administration and management of the  program to DANTES.
Provide information about the program to military personnel as part of  its pre-separation counseling.
While, among other responsibilities, Education is now expected to:    Transfer the congressionally appropriated funds to DOD.    Oversee DANTES’ use of these dollars.    Monitor on an annual basis the implementation of all activities carried  out by the program through review and approval of annual budget  plans, compliance reviews, audits, and site visits.
Monitor the expenditure of available funds during any fiscal year and  assure that no more than 10 percent of these funds is used for  administrative infrastructure.
Provide support and technical assistance.    Provide legal and policy advice on programmatic issues arising under  the authorizing legislation.
Aside from overseeing Troops-to-Teachers, Education engages in several  additional activities to encourage teacher recruitment in high-need areas.  For example, the department provides funding to forgive the student loans  of highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers serving in  low-income communities. Education also provides states with recruitment  grants to help reduce shortages of qualified teachers in high-need districts  through scholarships and support services. In addition, the department  operates the Transition to Teaching program, which, like Troops-to- Teachers, helps adult professionals make a career change into the  teaching profession.
section_title: The 3,875 Troops Documented as Recent Hires Have Contributed to Diversity in the Teaching Workforce, but Participation Has Recently Decreased and Is Geographically Concentrated
paragraphs: The 3,875 troops who were documented as having been hired through the  program between the enactment of NCLBA in 2002 and June 30, 2005—the  close of the 2004-2005 school year—contributed to gender and racial  diversity in the teaching workforce. However, participation has recently  decreased and hiring has been geographically concentrated. Over 80  percent of Troops teachers are male and over 25 percent are African- American—characteristics that differ from the new teacher population at  large. Interviews with personnel from several state placement assistance  offices indicated that recruitment has been negatively affected by recent  overseas deployments. Based on DANTES’ own records of school year  hiring—July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2005—the majority of the program’s  teachers found employment within seven states, with about 700 hired in  Texas alone. According to state placement personnel in these and other  states, the number and presence of military bases and military personnel  in these locations also affect participation.
subsections: section_title: The Program Brought Males and Minorities to the Teaching Profession
paragraphs: Since Troops-to-Teachers’ inception through June 30, 2005, about 30,720  individuals registered for the program. Beginning with the enactment of  NCLBA through June 30, 2005, more than 3,870 of these registrants  documented that they went on to teach, helping to diversify the teaching  workforce. Over 80 percent of all the teachers hired through the program  during this period were male, a demographic consistent with the military  population but different than that of the new teacher workforce, which is  only 26 percent male. Similarly, African-Americans have represented a  larger percentage of teachers in the program when compared to their  representation in the military and in the new teaching workforce.  Specifically, the proportion of African-Americans teaching through  Troops-to-Teachers is 28 percent, which is higher than the share of  African-Americans in the military population (17 percent), the civilian  workforce (11 percent), and the new teacher population (9 percent). Table  3 illustrates additional demographic characteristics of Troops-to-Teachers  participants.
As table 3 documents, Troops-to-Teachers’ classroom teachers most  frequently served in the Army (33 percent), Air Force (26 percent), and  Navy (15 percent) before registering with the program.
section_title: Barriers to Participation Include Ongoing Military Deployments
paragraphs: DANTES’ latest annual report indicates that registrations have declined  and officials from all of the seven placement offices we interviewed said  that a number of factors affect participation. These officials also noted  that despite the allure of more lucrative professions, registrants have a  keen interest in working with children and want to remain in public  service after leaving the military.
The program’s fiscal year 2005 annual report notes that registrations  declined by 9 percent from fiscal year 2004. State placement personnel  said that the high demand for troops to support the conflicts in Iraq and  Afghanistan has resulted in decreased Troops-to-Teachers program  registrations. Further, personnel in some offices noted that DOD’s stop  loss policy has reduced the volume of calls and inquiries. These  individuals also speculated that Education’s recent rule, which was  implemented in September 2005, and changed the criteria for receipt of  bonuses, would further reduce the number of participants. According to  these officials, the projected decrease in registrations would result  because potential applicants would no longer be able to attain the needed  financial assistance if the schools most appealing to them did not meet the  new criteria specified in the rule. However, others reported that  registrants typically lacked information about school eligibility at the time  of their application. As we will discuss later in the report, due to several  data limitations, the effect of the rule on the number of qualifying schools  and districts cannot be precisely determined.
In addition, some officials noted that barriers to entering the teaching  profession, such as difficulty identifying and enrolling in a flexible and  convenient teacher certification program, could limit participation, but  they expressed the opinion that as these programs became more  prevalent, teacher credentialing could accelerate and more individuals  would consider the profession to be a viable option. According to a 2005  survey of nearly 1,500 Troops-to-Teachers participants, 58 percent of  respondents received their teaching credentials through traditional,  campus-based teacher education programs—either at the undergraduate  or graduate level—40 percent of respondents took an alternative  certification route to receive the same credential, and the remaining  respondents were unsure how to characterize their programs.
At the individual level, motivational factors also were reported as  influencing participation. According to the 2005 survey, nearly 60 percent  of respondents said they would not have become a teacher if the Troops- to-Teachers program had not been available, and more than 60 percent of  respondents said they decided to become teachers because of their desire  to work with young people. The state placement personnel we interviewed  made comments that reflected this, with officials from three of the seven  offices specifically noting troops’ interests in working with young people,  and officials from five offices mentioning that troops often have  experience coaching and mentoring younger and newer recruits.  Additionally, personnel from all seven of the placement assistance offices  we interviewed characterized troops entering the classroom as mature,  experienced in working with diverse socio-economic groups, professional,  and adaptable. That said, they acknowledged that professions more  lucrative than teaching, such as those in the consulting or defense-related  industries, could lead many away from the education profession.
section_title: In Recent Years, Seven States Encompassed over Half the Teachers Hired from the Program, and Costs per Teacher Hired Varied Nationwide
paragraphs: Based on DANTES’ data collected from school years 2001-2002 through  2004-2005 (the period between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005), the  number of teachers hired from the program varied widely across the  country. For example, among the seven states with the largest number of  Troops hired over this period—Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,  Georgia, Texas, and Virginia—the number of hires ranged from 169 in  California to 697 in Texas. In contrast, during the same period, there were  34 states in which fewer than 50 teachers were hired from the program.  In particular, 13 of these states had fewer than 10 hires over the same 4  years. Nevertheless, even among the seven states with the largest numbers  of hires, teachers from the Troops program comprise less than 1 percent  of the K-12 workforce. Figure 2 illustrates the pattern of hiring from the  program across the country during this period.
The concentration of hires also reflects, to some extent, the concentration  of military personnel in these states. Officials from DANTES and the  placement offices said that troops tend to seek employment close to a  military base because of the services provided there, such as medical,  career counseling, and commissary services. States with a larger number  of military bases also had a larger number of Troops participants hired in  their schools.
The majority of states (34) hired fewer than 50 program teachers between  July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005—accounting for 15 percent of hires during  this period—but placement offices serving these states accounted for a  significant proportion of placement office funds (24 percent or $1.1 million  of $4.6 million). Given the hiring variation across the country, DANTES  compiles a report card to assess efficiencies in the 30 funded placement  assistance offices. The report card assigns a letter grade based on each  office’s cost (budget) per Troops participant hired. Report card grades for  fiscal year 2004 were nearly evenly distributed “A” through “C,” with about  eight states in each category, and another five receiving a “D,” the grade  assigned to states with the highest costs per hire. Costs per hire ranged  from $181 in Arkansas to $22,000 in Montana, with the median state cost  per hire approximately $4,000. Five of the seven offices with the greatest  number of hires had cost per hire ratios below the median—suggesting  economies of scale and a strong market for Troops participants in these  states.
Some states with high cost-per-hire ratios noted the frequency with which  they are counseling registrants who ultimately find employment outside  their states. However, our analysis of DANTES’ information on teacher  hiring shows that, between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005,   5 percent of program registrants found employment in a state  administered by a placement assistance office other than the office with  which they registered.
section_title: Most Funded Teachers Have Been Recruited and Retained by Districts Designated as High- Need, and about One- Third Reported Teaching in Priority Subject Areas Most Funded Teachers
paragraphs: Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program between  the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, found employment in high- need districts, and about 90 percent of those first funded continued  teaching in such districts their second year. Over 75 percent of this  original group taught in high-need districts for a third year, but data for  retention beyond 3 years are unavailable. About one-third of the troops  hired during this period reported teaching in the priority areas of math,  science, special education, or vocational education, and based on reported  data, 37 percent of hires reported teaching at the secondary school level.
subsections: section_title: Worked in Schools Serving Large Percentages of Children Who Qualify for Federal Assistance
paragraphs: Most teachers receiving financial assistance through the program during  this period found employment in schools designated as high-need. Those  individuals receiving bonuses are required to teach in high-need schools,  and DANTES validates their continued eligibility for funding by requiring  annual documentation of their employment. Those receiving stipends are  required to teach in high-need districts or public charter schools and must  also document their employment each year for DANTES’ verification, but  these individuals are not required to teach in high-need schools. DANTES  does not track or verify the places of employment for participants who do  not receive funding.
As figure 4 illustrates, between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30,  2005, about 2,690 teachers have received some form of financial assistance  to teach in high-need schools or districts.
Of this number, about 2,260 individuals received bonuses for teaching in  high-need schools. In this same time period, 254 of the 430 hired teachers  receiving only stipend dollars reported finding teaching positions in a high- need district. In addition, another roughly 950 participants who received  a stipend but not a bonus either have not yet completed their certification  program or have just completed it but have not yet been hired.
Even though more program registrants are eligible for a stipend than a  bonus, DANTES officials attribute the smaller number of stipend  recipients to (1) the fact that the program cannot guarantee employment  after the acquisition of a teaching certification and (2) participants’ own  risk aversion. For example, if participants take the stipend money up front  to pay for their certification and then do not find a teaching position in a  high-need district, they will be required to repay the funds—a risk that  program officials said participants may not be willing to take. On the  contrary, if they decline the stipend money initially and wait instead to see  if they can obtain a teaching position in a high-need school, program  officials stated that these participants will be eligible for a bonus and may  feel more comfortable making the 3-year teaching commitment that  receipt of the bonus requires.
section_title: Over 75 Percent of Funded Teachers Continued Teaching in Districts Designated as High-Need for at Least 3 Years, but a Valid Comparison with National Retention Rates Is Impossible
paragraphs: DANTES tracks the 3-year retention rate for each starting teacher because  that is the term of teaching required for an individual to receive financial  assistance. Of teachers funded through either a bonus or a stipend  between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2002, and who  subsequently found employment in high-need districts, 90 percent  continued teaching in a high-need district in their second year, and over 75  percent of this original group taught in a high-need district for a third year.  Retention rates for more recent starting teachers cannot be calculated  because 3 years have not yet passed since their initial placement. In  comparison, registrants who did not receive funding through the program  have had lower retention rates, with 47 percent teaching in a high-need  district for a second year and 20 percent teaching for a third year.
The 1-year retention rate for Troops-to-Teachers’ participants teaching in  high-need districts is not comparable to the national retention rate that  Education calculates because Education analyzes teacher retention in  high-need schools rather than in high-need districts. Further, even if both  calculations systematically assessed retention at the school-house level,  the two measures could still not be compared because Education’s  definition of a high-need school differs from the definition used by Troops- to-Teachers. Specifically, Education considers a school high-need if 75  percent or more of the student population is eligible for free or reduced- priced lunches. As we have noted, the Troops program uses a high-need  school definition that is broader, including schools in which 50 percent or  more of the student population is eligible to receive free or reduced-price  lunches, as well as schools in which “large percentages” of students are  served under IDEA.
Although the statute requires bonus recipients to teach in high-need  schools for 3 years, recipients who initially found employment in a high- need school may teach in a school not designated as such the following  year and thus postpone their second and third bonus payments until  employment in an eligible school is found again. If such employment is not  found, recipients are required to reimburse the program for funds  previously received. Similarly, stipend recipients are required to reimburse  the program when employment in a high-need district is not continued for  3 years. Of the funded participants who initially obtained a teaching  position in a high-need school, but who have not yet completed their   3-year teaching commitment, DANTES officials stated that the program  has not asked the vast majority for reimbursement because they can still  meet the law’s requirements through future employment. However,  according to DANTES’ officials, they have requested that 21 percent of  stipend recipients reimburse the program because they did not fulfill their  teaching obligation.
section_title: About One-Third of Teachers Hired from the Program Reported Teaching Math, Science, Special Education, or Vocational Education
paragraphs: Between the enactment of NCLBA and June 30, 2005, about one-third of  hired Troops reported teaching in the priority areas of math, science,  special education, and vocational education, and, based on reported data,  37 percent reported teaching at the secondary school level. Because  DANTES has been able to fund all qualified applicants, it has not had to  invoke the statutory subject area selection priorities. As figure 5  illustrates, hired teachers were spread across a variety of subject areas.
During this same period, 14 percent of Troops participants were hired into  elementary schools, 19 percent were hired into middle schools, 37 percent  were hired into secondary schools, 3 percent taught courses covering  multiple grade levels, and another 28 percent did not provide information  on the grade level they taught, based on reported data.
section_title: Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Program Management but Has Not Effectively Coordinated Program Administration with Related Initiatives
paragraphs: Education has taken some steps to improve program management, but  coordination with related teacher recruitment activities is lacking. For  example, Education staff have promulgated a final rule to clarify the  definition of a high-need school district and drafted a preliminary work  plan to oversee the program. However, the department does not have  procedures in place to validate DANTES’ designations of high-need  schools and does not monitor spending patterns of Troops-to-Teachers  placement offices. Additionally, despite operating multiple programs to  recruit, retain, and develop teachers, Education has done little to facilitate  coordination among the staff who manage these initiatives.
subsections: section_title: Education Has Better Defined High-Need Districts but Has Not Assessed the Data It Uses to Make High-Need School Determinations
paragraphs: After allowing time for public comment, Education promulgated a final  rule in July 2005, in part to clarify the definition of a high-need school  district. According to department officials, the rule change, which took  effect in September 2005, was necessary because of discrepancies in the  statute and subsequent confusion over which data sources and indicators  of poverty to use. While 66 percent of districts nationwide met the  criteria for designation as high-need—based on eligibility for free and  reduced-price lunches—before the rule change, the department has not  collected data to determine how the rule change would affect that number.  Since a district’s designation as high-need depends, in some cases, on the  designation of schools within that district as high-need, and the number of  schools nationwide designated as high-need is unknown, any discussion of  how the rule change would affect qualifying districts depends on certain  assumptions. If we assume that all districts with a poverty rate from 10 to  20 percent contain a high-need school to which all funded teachers have  been assigned, then the percentage of districts qualifying would drop from  66 to 61. However, if none of these districts contains a high-need school,  then the percentage of qualifying districts drops from 66 to 24.
Although Education better defined high-need districts, it has not assessed  the data it uses to make high-need school determinations. Based on the  statute, DANTES has defined a high-need school as having either 50  percent of more of its student population eligible to receive free and  reduced-price lunches or “large percentages of children receiving special  education services under IDEA.” However, unlike the criterion related to  lunches, which states a specific qualifying percent that can be assessed  using Education data sources, the statute does not make clear what  constitutes a “large percentage” of students served under IDEA. In  addition, the department does not have a basis for calculating IDEA  information at the school-house level because its own Common Core of  Data has that information only for districts.
According to DANTES’ records, in an attempt to operationalize the  definition of a high-need school, the department provided verbal guidance  on or before February 15, 2002, on this issue, specifying that DANTES  should use an eligibility threshold of 11 percent, which it characterized as  the national average. However, no one at the department we spoke with  was familiar with the origins of this guidance, and according to our review  of Education’s data, the percentage of students receiving services under  IDEA across the nation was actually 13 percent in 2001 and 14 percent in  2002 and 2003. By our analysis, three-quarters of districts nationwide  have 11 percent or more of their student population receiving IDEA  services—indicating that the threshold the department established to  define a “large percentage” may not result in a very targeted universe of  schools.  In commenting on a draft of this report, Education officials noted  that in November 2005, they provided DANTES with the latest national  data on the percentage of students served under IDEA—13.8 percent.   According to Education, DANTES will use this figure when making  determinations for the upcoming school year.
Because Education does not collect IDEA information at the school-house  level, it is not possible to determine the concentration of students  receiving services under IDEA in individual schools, and DANTES must  use alternative data sources to determine if schools meet the IDEA  criterion. Specifically, DANTES currently relies on a database operated by  Standard and Poor’s that presents the percentage of students receiving  services under IDEA for some schools in certain states. If information on  the schools where participants are working or applying is omitted from the  database, DANTES then has to call the schools to make determinations on  a case by case basis. Table 4 illustrates the different sources DANTES  must use to determine if schools and districts meet the criteria necessary  for designation as high-need.
Education officials noted the difficulty of amassing the various data  needed for DANTES to adhere to the definition of high-need schools, and  cited this as a reason for not developing a centralized database of  information. However, according to Education officials, the department  had not assessed the reliability of the steps DANTES currently uses to  make high-need school determinations. Without a thorough review of the  validity of available data, the department is unable to determine (1) if  DANTES is applying the existing eligibility criteria appropriately, and (2) if  the eligibility thresholds, particularly with regard to IDEA, reflect current  conditions.
section_title: Education Lacks Controls to Ensure Effective Allocation of Program Funds and Timely Execution of Its Management Responsibilities
paragraphs: Education has not effectively implemented some of the controls necessary  to ensure that the program is efficiently achieving its objectives. GAO’s  standards for agencies’ internal control activities note the importance of  qualified and continuous supervision, overall workforce continuity  planning, and regular review of performance reports, budgets, and trends  to ensure effective agency operations. Since 2001, Education has had four  different individuals responsible for the Troops-to-Teachers program.  Further, while one former manager had drafted a preliminary work plan,  which included developing an evaluation plan and working with DANTES  to develop performance measures, officials acknowledged that they had  not focused on implementing the steps, and said that the current work  plan needed improvement. When we established that no timeline was in  place to implement the existing plan, officials responded that they would  finalize a revised plan and implement it by February 2006. Officials added  that while Troops-to-Teachers is included in Education’s annual  performance report, they are also working on alternative outcome  measures that better assess the quality of teachers recruited through the  program.
In addition, Education lacks the necessary controls to ensure that the  program is spending its funding not only within the parameters established  by the statute and the memorandum of agreement, but also in an efficient  and productive way. The statute caps annual grants that can be made to  states for Troops-to-Teachers’ placement office operations at $5 million  and the memorandum caps expenses associated with administrative  infrastructure, such as DANTES’ spending on database management or  personnel, at 10 percent of the total available funds. While Education  officials check to ensure that the program does not exceed its caps, they  neither review how DANTES spends its budget nor do they monitor the  spending patterns of placement assistance offices. As noted earlier, 13 of  the 30 funded placement offices received low scores of either “C” or “D”  but department officials told us they have not determined if the cost per  hire ratios, which drive the grades DANTES assigns, are appropriate  measures of state offices’ performance. As a result, the department is not  positioned to comment on the dispersion of these grades or to take action  to address poor performing offices. Specifically, without assessing these  measures or alternative performance data, Education cannot determine  whether state offices should be closed or consolidated to improve  program efficiency. Additionally, our analysis of the program’s overall  expenditures for fiscal year 2002 showed that about 60 percent was  allotted to financial assistance and 40 percent of funds supported  operational or administrative expenses in the central office and placement  offices. For fiscal year 2004, to date, the amount expended on financial  assistance has been just over 50 percent of the program’s total  expenditures. Without a thorough review of these spending patterns, the  department’s ability to take action when spending approaches the caps  may be limited.
section_title: Education Has Not Made Efforts to Coordinate Program Administration with Other Federal Teacher Development Activities
paragraphs: Education operates another teacher recruitment and retention program— the Transition to Teaching program—that overlaps somewhat with the  mission of Troops-to-Teachers. Both programs recruit mid-career  professionals to teach in high-need schools and in subjects such as math  and science, for which qualified teachers are in short supply. Both  programs target career changers and Transition to Teaching funds are also  used to recruit from the military population. However, as illustrated in  table 5, Transition to Teaching is distinct from Troops-to-Teachers in that  it provides grants directly to organizations, such as universities or county  offices of education, that operate teacher certification programs.
We found that 12 of the 123 grants (approximately 10 percent) made  through the Transition to Teaching program from the 2002 and 2004 award  years funded programs that specifically targeted military personnel. For  example, several universities receiving Transition to Teaching grants  recruit from the retired military population and operate programs that  provide mentoring services to assist with their retention and development.  The remaining Transition to Teaching grantees generally focus their  recruitment on career changers from a wide variety of professions,  although they too may provide mentoring and ongoing support for new  teacher candidates.
Despite the similarities in the mission of Transition to Teaching and  Troops-to-Teachers, and the fact that they are administered by the same  office within Education, we found minimal coordination between the  programs. Although Education officials said that department personnel  from both programs attend the same conferences and share ideas, there  was little evidence of resource coordination beyond discussions of how  the programs related. Additionally, officials noted that a teacher policy  group had previously existed within the department so that managers  could meet regularly to discuss the teacher-related programs they  oversaw. Though department officials told us that the group had  disbanded, they noted it would be a useful tool to facilitate ongoing  collaboration.
Differences in data collection and monitoring strategies exist that may  further limit the coordination of these programs. For example, DANTES  collects participation data on the Troops-to-Teachers program. For the  Transition to Teaching program, however, Education merely lists grant  recipients and summarizes their programs. Additionally, Education  collects very little data to assess grant recipients’ program outcomes.  According to Education’s performance report on Transition to Teaching,  grantees use different methods for reporting data to the department.  Further, the department does not have any summary information on the  program’s outcomes over time, but agency officials told us they have  contracted with an independent research group to evaluate performance  for a sample of 2002 grant recipients. Because Education does not know  the demographic characteristics of the individuals who benefit from the  Transition to Teaching program, the department cannot determine the  extent to which the two programs complement and coordinate with one  another to move former military personnel into teaching positions.
Education officials told us that they believe statutory barriers would  prevent the consolidation of Troops-to-Teachers with the other programs  like Transition to Teaching. Nevertheless, the officials acknowledged  similarities between the programs and supported the idea of further  coordination.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Between the enactment of NCLBA on January 8, 2002, and June 30, 2005,  the Troops-to-Teachers program helped at least 3,875 former members of  the military enter the teaching profession, contributing to the  diversification of the teaching workforce. However, without thoroughly  reviewing the data sources that DANTES uses to designate schools as  high-need, Education cannot ensure that DANTES is (1) making accurate  decisions about which schools meet the criteria and (2) placing new  teachers in these high-need schools. Further, without providing updated  guidance on eligibility thresholds for students served under IDEA,  Education cannot ensure that the criteria currently used reflect schools’  changing conditions.
Education, which has overseen the program since 2000, has taken some  steps to manage the program, but it only recently established a timeline to  finalize and implement a draft work plan. As of December 2005, however,  it remained unclear whether or not this plan would include a formal  mechanism, such as a joint work group, to coordinate with a similar  program also administered by the department—the Transition to Teaching  program. Without more detailed coordination strategies, Education may  be missing an important opportunity to leverage its resources and develop  an effective campaign to recruit and retain mid-career professionals in  high-need schools.
Finally, although the program’s operating budget is relatively small,  without stronger controls in place to determine if program spending levels  are appropriate, the department cannot ensure that placement offices are  efficiently serving both eligible participants and the children in the  neediest schools and districts. Thus, while the program is spending within  its caps, because the department does not review how placement offices  manage their funds, it is unable to identify those offices that are working  well, determine ways in which consolidation may be wise, and justify the  continued investment of federal dollars. In addition, without leveraging the  efficiencies of placement offices that operate with low costs per hire, and  considering the closure or consolidation of less efficient offices, the  department may be unable to reduce the program’s operating costs and  free additional funds for financial assistance, should the number of  program registrants rise.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making three recommendations to further improve Education’s  oversight of the Troops-to-Teachers program.
To assist with the identification of eligible high-need schools and to  help direct participants to them, the Secretary of Education should  assess the reliability of the data DANTES uses to determine a “large  percentage” of students served under IDEA and periodically review  existing guidance to ensure that the eligibility threshold related to the  IDEA criterion reflects the changing conditions in schools.
To better link programs that serve the military population and that  relate to teacher recruitment and retention overall, the Secretary of  Education should consider reconvening teacher policy groups or  otherwise developing a plan to coordinate the use of existing  departmental resources and staff assigned to monitor similar programs.
To better exercise its discretion for grant-making to state placement  offices and to ensure that budgets are created to reflect success in  facilitating teacher placement, the Secretary of Education should  consider data that DANTES collects on placement offices’ cost per hire  ratios, or develop other measures of efficiency, and take action when  offices are deemed ineffective at helping participants find employment.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Education and DOD for their review  and comment.  DOD did not provide any comments, and Education’s  comments are reproduced in appendix II.
Education generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.  With  regard to our first recommendation—that Education assess the reliability  of the data DANTES uses to determine a “large percentage” of students  served under IDEA and also review existing guidance it provides on  making the determination—Education said that in November 2005, it  provided DANTES with an updated figure on the percentage of students  served nationally under IDEA.  While our report reflects the information  that DANTES had available for the current school year, the data that  Education recently provided will be used for making determinations for  the upcoming school year.  We believe that it is important for the  department to periodically update the IDEA data and to regularly monitor  the reliability of the information that DANTES collects from schools to  address this criterion.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education and  Defense, relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties.  We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be made available at no charge on our Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff has any questions  about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Other contacts and major contributors are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of  methodological approaches. To provide information on the number and  characteristics of program participants and the factors affecting  participation—our first reporting objective—we analyzed data that  DANTES maintains on registered program participants, focusing on those  participants who received funding through the program between the  enactment of NCLBA on January 8, 2002, and June 30, 2005, which marks  the end of the 2004-2005 school year. These data include demographic  information, such as age and race, as well as information on the schools,  subject areas, and grade levels taught for the participants’ first 3 years of  employment, which also helped us respond to our second reporting  objective—the extent to which participants have been hired by and  retained in high-need districts and priority subject areas. To assess  placement into high-need districts, we matched employment information  to Education’s Common Core of Data school survey, which includes  school and district-level counts of free and reduced-price lunch eligibility.  To provide information on the impact of the final rule on the number of  school districts eligible to be classified as high-need, we analyzed data  from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates  program, which includes enrollment and poverty counts by school district.
To provide information on factors affecting participation, we reviewed the  methodology and findings from a recently issued survey of current Troops  participants, which measures their satisfaction with the program,  motivations to teach, views on professional development, and future  career or retirement plans. In addition, we contacted personnel in several  placement assistance offices to learn their perspectives. Although we were  unable to quantify the order and magnitude of the factors they noted, these  interviews contributed significantly to our findings in this regard.
To report on our final objective—the steps that Education has taken to  implement internal controls to facilitate program management—we  interviewed Education and DOD officials responsible for the oversight and  administration of the program to learn more about the select internal  controls that they implement to evaluate program achievements and the  cost-effectiveness of the program. These controls include annual  performance reports that states provide to DANTES and that DANTES in  turn presents to Education and DOD. In addition, we assessed DANTES’  calculation of each state office’s average cost per placement. We also  obtained and reviewed relevant program guidance and materials from  Education and DOD as appropriate to document these practices, including  information on the new rule Education finalized in July 2005 to clarify  program eligibility and its potential impact on the recruitment and  retention of program participants. In addition, to provide general  background information, we interviewed several education policy  researchers, some of whom were teaching or researching in the field of  teacher preparation, induction, and professional development, and  reviewed related reports on these topics.
We assessed the reliability of DANTES’ administrative data by tracing the  dataset contents to the source registration and program materials for all  variables used in our analysis. In addition, we assessed the reliability of  Education’s Common Core of Data and the Census Bureau’s Small Area  Income and Poverty Estimates program data by reviewing existing  information about the data and the system that produced them, and where  applicable, performing electronic testing of required data elements. We  further assessed the reliability of the Census data by reviewing published  assessments by Census Bureau statisticians of both the model itself and  how the results of that model compare to other national sources of income  and poverty information. We determined that the data were sufficient and  reliable for the purposes of our report. The work was done in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant Director), Joy Gambino (Analyst-in- Charge), and Jeffrey W. Weinstein (Economist) managed all aspects of the  assignment. In addition, Avrum Ashery, Richard Burkard, Wilfred  Holloway, Mitch Karpman, Lynn Milan, John Mingus, Luann Moy, Mimi  Nguyen, Karen O’Conor, Jim Rebbe, and Tovah Rom made significant  contributions.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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: November 21, 2005.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.   GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1999.
Troops to Teachers: Program Helped Address Teacher Shortages.   GAO-01-567. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001.