Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher Requirements
Published: 2004-07-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: During the 2001-2002 school year, more than 400,000 special education teachers provided instructional services to approximately 6 million students with disabilities in U.S. schools. Two federal laws contain teacher qualification requirements that apply to special education teachers: the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Given the committee's interest in issues related to highly qualified special education teachers, we are providing information about (1) the state certification requirements, including the use of alternative certification programs, for special education teachers, and how they relate to NCLBA requirements; (2) the factors that facilitate or impede state efforts to ensure that special education teachers meet NCLBA requirements; and (3) how different offices in the Department of Education (Education) assist states in addressing NCLBA teacher requirements.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In the 2002-2003 school year, all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico required that special education teachers have a bachelor's degree and be certified to teach--two of NCLBA's teacher qualification requirements--and half required special education teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency in core academic subjects, which is the third requirement. Specifically, 24 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico required their teachers to demonstrate some level of subject matter competency by having a degree or passing state tests in the core academic subjects that they wished to teach. Teachers of core academic subjects in the remaining states that did not have such requirements might not be positioned to meet the NCLBA requirements. To meet NCLBA teacher requirements, teachers would need to demonstrate competency in core academic subjects by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. State education officials reported that the availability of funds to support professional development facilitated implementation of the NCLBA teacher requirements, while other factors, such as uncertainty about how to apply the subject matter competency requirement to special education teachers, impeded implementation. State education officials and national education organizations' representatives we interviewed cited the need for more assistance from Education in explaining NCLBA's teacher requirements and identifying implementation strategies. Education has provided a range of assistance, such as site visits, Web-based guidance, and financial assistance, to help states implement the highly qualified teacher requirements. However, department coordination related to the implementation of NCLBA's teacher requirements for special education teachers has been limited.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: During the 2001-2002 school year, more than 400,000 special education  teachers provided instructional services to approximately 6 million  students with disabilities in U.S. schools. Two federal laws contain teacher  qualification requirements that apply to special education teachers: the No  Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 and the Individuals with  Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was last amended in 1997.  Within the Department of Education (Education), the Office of Elementary  and Secondary Education (OESE) has primary responsibility for  implementing NCLBA requirements, and the Office of Special Education  Programs (OSEP) has primary responsibility for implementing IDEA  requirements. State officials have raised issues regarding the compatibility  of the laws’ teacher qualification requirements and how to apply NCLBA  requirements to special education teachers.
NCLBA requires that all teachers of “core academic subjects,” such as  English, meet teacher qualification requirements, and most of these  teachers must do so by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. To meet  requirements, teachers (1) must have at least a bachelor’s degree, (2) be  certified to teach by their states, and (3) must demonstrate subject matter  competence in each core academic subject that they teach. Under the  NCLBA, all teachers, including special education teachers, who provide  instruction in core academic subjects are generally required to meet  NCLBA requirements. However, special education teachers who provide  other types of instruction do not need to meet NCLBA requirements. IDEA  generally requires teachers to be appropriately and adequately trained in  accordance with standards established by each state but does not specify  any other minimum qualifications for special education teachers. Congress  is considering including provisions on special education teacher  qualifications in the pending reauthorization of IDEA.
Given your interest in issues related to special education teacher  qualifications, we are providing information about (1) the state  certification requirements, including the use of alternative certification  programs, for special education teachers, and how they relate to NCLBA  requirements; (2) the factors that facilitate or impede state efforts to  ensure that special education teachers meet NCLBA requirements; and   (3) how different offices in the U.S. Department of Education assist states  in addressing NCLBA teacher requirements.
To obtain this information, we used multiple data collection methods.  First, we surveyed special education directors in 50 states, the District of  Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain information on their states or  territories for the 2002-2003 school year in the following areas: special  education teacher certification requirements, the conditions or issues that  affected implementation of the NCLBA teacher quality requirements for  special education teachers, and the assistance that various Education  offices provided states in implementing NCLBA requirements for special  education teachers. We achieved a 100 percent response rate. Second, we  interviewed education officials in 6 states: Arkansas, Maryland,  Massachusetts, New York, South Dakota, and Washington. These states  were selected for variance in the number of special education students  served, the percentage of certified special education teachers, and  geographic location. We also interviewed about 20 federal education  officials and representatives from 8 national education organizations  regarding special education teacher certification, qualifications, meeting  NCLBA teacher requirements, and the assistance various Education  offices provided to states in these areas. Finally, we reviewed the Internet  sites of all states to gather information about certification requirements  and alternative certification programs for special education teachers. We  also analyzed agency documentation, legislation, and other documentation  related to special education teacher qualifications and requirements. We  conducted our work between August 2003 and June 2004 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which reauthorized the Elementary  and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is designed to improve the  education of all students and the quality of teachers. NCLBA requires that  all teachers of “core academic subjects”—defined to mean English,  reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics  and government, economics, arts, history, and geography—be “highly  qualified.” To be highly qualified, teachers (1) must have at least a  bachelor’s degree, (2) be certified to teach by their state, and   (3) demonstrate subject matter competency in each core academic subject  that they teach. A teacher’s options for demonstrating subject matter  competency vary according to whether the teacher is new and the grade  level being taught. New elementary school teachers must demonstrate  subject matter competency by passing a rigorous state exam in the basic  elementary school curriculum; new middle or high school teachers may  establish that they are highly qualified by either taking a rigorous state  exam or successfully completing a degree (or equivalent credentialing) in  each core academic subject taught. In addition, NCLBA allows current  teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency based on a “high  objective uniform state standard of evaluation.” For example, under these  uniform state standards, a combination of experience, expertise, and  professional training could be used to meet the NCLBA subject matter  competency requirements.
Education has issued guidance to states on how to apply NCLBA  requirements to all teachers, including special education teachers.  According to Education’s January 2004 guidance, special education  teachers who provide instruction in core academic subjects, such as  teachers in self-contained classrooms, are required to comply with the  NCLBA subject matter competency requirements. In contrast, those  special educators who do not provide instruction in core academic  subjects, such as those who provide consultative services to highly  qualified general educators, do not have to comply with the NCLBA  teacher requirements. In addition, Education’s March 2004 guidance  provided additional flexibility on the implementation deadline and  competency requirements for some special education teachers.  Specifically, the guidance stated that educators in eligible rural areas who  are highly qualified in at least one core academic subject they teach would  have 3 additional years to demonstrate subject matter competency in other  academic areas. The guidance also states that teachers who provide  instruction in multiple core academic subjects will be able to demonstrate  their subject matter competency through one process under their states’  uniform standards, such as taking a single test that covers multiple core  academic subjects.
IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the unique needs of  children with disabilities, including, among others, children with specific  learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, mental  retardation, and serious emotional disturbance. The law mandates that a  free appropriate public education be made available for all eligible  children with disabilities, ensures due process rights, requires an  individualized education program (IEP) for each student, requires the  inclusion of students with disabilities in state and district wide assessment  programs, and requires the placement of students in the least restrictive  environment. Under IDEA, states are required to establish special  education teacher requirements that are based on the highest  requirements in the state for personnel serving children and youth with  disabilities.
Congress is considering including new special education teacher  qualifications in the reauthorized IDEA. Under H.R. 1350, a new definition  of “highly qualified,” as it refers to teachers, would be added with the same  meaning as in NCLBA. In contrast, S. 1248 would add an extensive  definition of “highly qualified” with respect to the qualification of  educational personnel, while taking into account differences between  special education and general education teachers. For example, under       S. 1248, special education teachers who consult with secondary school  core academic subject teachers for children with disabilities would need  to be fully certified in special education and demonstrate the knowledge  and skills necessary to teach students with disabilities, to be highly  qualified. In addition, S. 1248 proposes to extend the deadline for meeting  the highly qualified teacher requirements by 1 year—to school year 2006- 2007.
Two offices within the Department of Education are responsible for  addressing special education teacher qualifications: the Office of  Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Special Education  Programs. The enactment of NCLBA significantly changed the  expectations for all teachers, including those instructing students with  disabilities. For example, states are now required to report on the  qualifications of their teachers and the progress of their students.
OESE has assumed responsibility for developing policies for improving the  achievement of all students and the qualifications of teachers. In addition,  the office provides technical and financial assistance to states and  localities, in part so they can help teachers meet the new qualification  requirements. For example, in fiscal year 2003, OESE provided funding to  state and local education agencies through its Improving Teacher Quality  state grant program.
OSEP is responsible for providing leadership and financial resources to  help states and localities implement IDEA for students with disabilities  and their teachers. These responsibilities include awarding discretionary  grants and contracts for projects designed to improve service provision to  children with disabilities. In 2003, OSEP provided funding to 30 states  through the State Improvement Grants program. OSEP also supports  research on special education through centers such as the Center on  Personnel Studies in Special Education.
section_title: All States Implemented at Least Two of Three NCLBA Teacher Requirements for Special Education Teachers
paragraphs: In the 2002-2003 school year, all states required that special education  teachers have a bachelor’s degree and be certified to teach—two of the  three NCLBA teacher qualification requirements—and half required  special education teachers to demonstrate competency in core academic  subjects, which is the third requirement. In the 26 states that did not  require teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency, state-certified  special education teachers who were assigned to instruct core academic  subjects might not be positioned to meet the NCLBA requirements. In 31  states that offered alternative routes to teacher certification, certification  requirements for alternative route and traditional teacher preparation  program graduates followed a similar pattern, with half meeting two of  three NCLBA teacher requirements.
subsections: section_title: Half of States Have Similar Teacher Requirements to NCLBA, but 26 States Did Not Require Special Education Teachers to Demonstrate Competency in Core Academic Subjects
paragraphs: Every state required special education teachers to hold at least a  bachelor’s degree and to be certified by their states before teaching,  according to our survey results and reviews of Education documents and  state Web sites. States varied in whether they offered one or more types  of teaching certificates for special educators. Specifically, 30 states  established a single certification for special education teachers that  covered kindergarten through 12th grade, according to survey  respondents. The remaining 22 states offered two or more certifications.  For example, some states offered different certifications for teachers of  elementary, middle school, and high school students. In addition, some  states certified special education teachers to serve students with specific  disability categories such as hearing impaired and emotionally disturbed,  and/or with broader disability categories, such as mild, moderate, and  severe special needs. Finally, several states certified their special  education teachers for specific instructional roles such as general special  education teacher, resource room teacher, or collaborative teacher.
During the 2002-2003 school year, 24 states, the District of Columbia, and  Puerto Rico required special education teachers to demonstrate some  level of competency in the core academic subjects that they wished to  teach at the time of their initial certification by having a degree or passing  tests in the academic subjects that they wished to teach. Teachers in these  states are better positioned to meet NCLBA’s teacher requirements.  However, the level of competency required varied by state and in some  cases may not meet NCLBA competency level requirements. The rest of  the states did not have any such requirements. (See fig. 1.)
In states that did not have these requirements, the certified special  education teachers who were assigned to instruct core academic subjects  might not be positioned to meet the NCLBA requirements. To meet NCLBA  teacher requirements, these teachers would need to demonstrate subject  matter competency by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
The extent to which special education teachers were required to meet  NCLBA subject matter competency requirements depended upon their  instructional roles, which could sometimes be difficult for prospective  teachers to determine. Special education teachers often attained their  certification prior to being hired by local school districts for specific grade  levels, subjects, or instructional roles. Therefore, these individuals might  not be positioned to meet NCLBA teacher requirements for their future  instructional roles. Furthermore, any special education teacher who was  assigned to teach a different subject from one year to the next might meet  subject matter competency requirements one year but not the next.  According to Education officials, these challenges are not specific to  special education teachers and will require school districts to be more  mindful of teacher qualifications, including subject matter mastery, when  assigning teachers to various teaching roles.
section_title: Special Education Teachers from Programs Offering Alternative Routes to Certification Were Generally Required to Meet the Same Certification Requirements as Other Special Education Teachers
paragraphs: According to survey respondents, 31 states provided alternative routes to  certification for prospective special education teachers. States have  developed such routes to meet specific teacher shortages as well as to  allow professionals in related fields to become teachers. The alternative  routes to certification programs that we reviewed were generally  administered by the state education agencies, often through institutions of  higher education. However, this was not always the case: In Maryland, for  example, one county contracted with Sylvan Learning Center and the  New Teacher Project to provide its alternative route to certification  program.
Most of the states that provided alternative routes to certification required  that the graduates from such alternative route to certification programs  fulfill the same certification requirements as graduates from traditional  special education teacher preparation programs, such as having a  bachelor’s degree and passing teacher licensing examinations. The  primary difference between alternative route programs and traditional  teacher preparation programs was the extent to which teaching candidates  received practical teaching experience prior to attaining full state  certification.
In general, prospective teachers in alternative route to certification  programs were required to receive more practical teaching experience  before being certified than were teachers in traditional programs. For  example, candidates in an alternative route to certification program in  Illinois were required to complete a 1-year mentored teaching internship,  while most traditional certification programs for special education  teachers required teaching candidates to complete a 9- to 18-week  supervised student teaching assignment. This additional teaching  experience has been required because individuals in some alternative  programs have not received courses in pedagogy and instructional  techniques. (See app. I for state special education alternative route to  certification program contact information.)
section_title: State Officials Cited Several Factors That Affected the Implementation of NCLBA Subject Matter Competency Requirements for Special Education Teachers
paragraphs: State officials indicated that implementing the core academic subject  competency requirements of NCLBA would be difficult and cited factors  that have facilitated or impeded application of this requirement to special  education teachers. State officials identified several key facilitators,  including having funds available to dedicate to special educators’  professional development and having preexisting or ongoing efforts to  develop subject matter competency standards for special educators. State  officials and national education organizations’ representatives also cited  several factors that impeded meeting the subject competency  requirements, including uncertainty about how to apply the law to special  education teachers in some circumstances, and the need for additional  assistance from Education in identifying implementation strategies.
subsections: section_title: Availability of Professional Development Funds Was among the Factors Cited as Facilitating the Implementation of NCLBA Requirements
paragraphs: Survey respondents, as well as state officials and national education  organizations’ representatives we interviewed, reported that the  availability of professional development funding and the flexibility to use  funds were essential in helping teachers meet the NCLBA subject matter  competency requirement. For example, officials in 19 states reported  helping special education teachers by allocating some of the states’  professional development money to financial aid for those seeking to  enhance their knowledge in a core academic subject, such as by pursuing  a degree. In addition, states can use their professional development funds  to create alternative routes to certification. This could result in developing  a cadre of special educators who would already have expertise in a core  academic subject area.
Survey respondents described several state assistance initiatives that were  designed to help special education teachers meet the subject matter  competency requirements. For example, 17 survey respondents reported  holding workshops for special education teachers on specific academic  subjects, and a few states held review sessions to prepare teachers for  states’ academic content exams. In addition, respondents from 7 states  reported providing sample test questions to help teachers prepare for  subject matter competency tests. Nineteen survey respondents reported  that their states had established partnerships with institutions of higher  education to develop and implement strategies to assist special education  teachers. For example, Arkansas collaborated with state colleges and  universities to develop dual-certification programs for special educators.
Officials we interviewed from 2 of 6 states said that they expected their  uniform state standards of evaluation would make it easier for their  experienced teachers to meet NCLBA subject matter requirements.  Specifically, they asserted that these competency standards would allow  states and territories to design alternative methods for evaluating teachers’  knowledge of the subject matter they teach, other than having a degree or  passing subject matter tests in a core academic subject. According to  officials in 2 of the 6 states we interviewed, their alternative methods of  evaluating teachers’ subject matter competency would take into account  both a teacher’s years of experience and factors such as participation in  professional development courses. A few state officials and national  education organizations’ representatives we spoke to commented that the  flexibility to design alternative methods for evaluating teachers’ subject  matter knowledge provided more options for making subject matter  competency assessments of experienced special education teachers.
section_title: Uncertainty about How to Apply the Subject Matter Competency Requirement to Special Education Teachers in Different Instructional Roles Was One of Several Barriers Cited to Meeting the NCLBA Requirements
paragraphs: State officials we interviewed and surveyed reported being concerned  about how difficult meeting the subject matter competency requirements  might be for special educators providing instruction, given that their roles  may require them to teach at multiple grade levels or multiple subjects.  State officials told us that because of special educator shortages, special  education teachers’ instructional roles might vary. For example, some  special educators might not have to meet subject matter competency  requirements when they were hired, but subsequently might have to meet  subject matter competency requirements for one or more core academic  subjects, depending upon their instructional roles. Education has issued  guidance that says that teachers instructing core academic subjects must  demonstrate subject matter competency. This guidance applies to all  teachers, including special education teachers. However, Education  officials told us that the assessment level of the student being taught was a  consideration in determining the application of the NCLBA subject matter  competency requirement. The inclusion of the assessment levels in  determining how to apply the NCLBA requirements may explain some of  state officials’ uncertainty regarding the application of the requirement to  special education teachers.
About half of the state officials and national education organizations’  representatives we interviewed reported that states needed more  assistance on how to implement NCLBA teacher requirements for their  special education teachers. For example, some state officials from  Oklahoma and South Dakota reported being uncertain how to apply the  requirements to the unique situations in which special education teachers  provide instruction. Officials in these states reported that they were  unclear whether a teacher providing instruction in core academic subjects  to high school age students who are performing at the elementary level  would need to meet elementary or high school level subject competency  requirements (See table 1 for examples of the application of NCLBA  requirements to special educators’ instructional roles).
Officials from half the states we surveyed indicated that they did not  believe the law provided enough flexibility for teachers to meet the subject  competency requirements. A few state officials we interviewed,  particularly those with a large percentage of rural districts, such as those  in South Dakota and Arkansas, mentioned this perceived lack of flexibility  as a key concern. In particular, these officials indicated that because their  special education teachers often teach multiple subjects, they would have  to attain multiple degrees or pass several subject matter tests to meet the  subject matter competency requirement. Recent Education guidance  issued after this survey was concluded gives states more time to help all  teachers, including special education teachers who teach core academic  subjects, in small, rural school districts, meet the requirements. Under this  new guidance, teachers in eligible rural school districts, who are highly  qualified in at least one subject, will have 3 years to become highly  qualified in the additional subjects they teach.
State officials reported concerns about their states’ ability to meet the  federal timelines for implementing the NCLBA teacher requirements for  special education teachers. Officials from 32 states reported that the time  frames were not feasible for implementing the requirements. This included  15 states that had established subject matter competency requirements for  their special education certification. However, depending on the specific  state certification requirements, teachers in these states may still be  required to do additional work to meet the subject matter competency  requirements of NCLBA. In addition, some state officials reported that  their states were not positioned to meet federal deadlines because some  institutions of higher education had not aligned their programs with  NCLBA requirements. For example, officials in 31 states reported that that  current special education teacher preparation programs hindered  implementation of NCLBA requirements, primarily because these  programs did not emphasize majors or concentrations in core academic  subjects. Given these conditions, state officials, in 3 of the 6 states we  visited, reported the need for additional assistance in identifying strategies  to meet the timelines for meeting requirements. Education also noted that  the challenge facing states is developing new mechanisms to make sure  that all teachers of core academic subjects are able to demonstrate  appropriate subject matter mastery.
Some state officials and national education organizations’ leaders also  cited concerns that special education teachers currently teaching might  leave the field rather than take exams or return to school to take the  courses needed to demonstrate subject matter competency. Thirty-two  survey respondents expressed concern that the potential flight of special  education teachers would hinder efforts to implement the requirements.
Finally, state education officials reported uncertainty over how to  reconcile requirements of the two laws that appear to be inconsistent and  thus could impede implementation of NCLBA. These officials reported  that they were unsure as to which act—IDEA or NCLBA—should take  precedence in establishing personnel requirements for special education  teachers. For example, under IDEA, a student’s IEP could require that he  be taught mathematics at a functional level 3 years below his  chronological age, and under IDEA a certified special education teacher  would be qualified to provide this instruction. However, under NCLBA, a  teacher might not be qualified to instruct this student without first  demonstrating subject matter competency in mathematics. According to  Education officials, the requirements would depend in part on the  assessment level of the students being taught. At the same time, Education  officials noted that NCLBA teacher requirements apply to all teachers,  including special education teachers. As a result of this uncertainty, some  of the state special education officials we interviewed and surveyed said  that they had decided to wait for further guidance or assistance before  beginning to implement any NCLBA requirements for special education  teachers. Education officials reported that they were aware that some  states had expressed uncertainty about how to implement NCLBA’s  teacher requirements. Moreover, Education officials noted that states that  wait for further guidance could hinder their special education teachers’  ability to meet the subject matter competency requirements by the end of  the 2005-2006 school year.
section_title: Coordination among Education’s Offices Responsible for Educating Students with Disabilities Was Limited
paragraphs: Education has provided a range of assistance, such as site visits, Web- based guidance, and financial assistance, to help states implement the  highly qualified teacher requirements. However, department coordination  related to the implementation of NCLBA’s teacher requirements for special  education teachers has been limited. OESE has taken the lead in providing  this guidance, with support from offices such as the Office of General  Counsel and the Office of the Secretary. OSEP played a limited role in  these efforts. Further, departmental coordination among Education’s  offices was limited with respect to OSEP’s involvement in other key  teacher quality initiatives. Because of this, Education may not have been in  a position to be fully apprised of how special education concerns could  affect implementation of the NCLBA teacher requirements. However,  Education officials told us that they included OSEP by contacting OSEP  staff to clarify IDEA substantive issues. Further, Education officials told us  they have recently added OSEP to the department’s teacher quality policy  team. However, Education currently does not have plans to develop  written policies and procedures for coordination among its offices.
subsections: section_title: Education Provided Assistance to States in Implementing the NCLBA Teacher Requirements
paragraphs: According to Education officials, OESE took the lead in providing  assistance to states concerning the NCLBA teacher requirements, with  some support provided by offices including OSEP, the Office of the  Secretary, the Office of the Undersecretary, the Assistant Secretary of  Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Office of General Counsel.  One of OESE’s key efforts to provide technical assistance to states was the  Teacher Assistance Corps initiative, which sent teams of experts to states  to provide clarification and guidance on implementing NCLBA teacher  requirements. According to Education, these teams have been responsible  for sharing promising strategies, providing advice on compliance issues,  and assisting state officials in setting and meeting teacher quality goals.  The teams have also gathered feedback from states on their concerns  about implementing the teacher requirements. Team members have  included lead officials from OESE and general counsel, individuals with  expertise on issues of concern to particular states, higher education  representatives, and education officials from that state. Education officials  told us that OSEP staff did not participate in these visits, but two state  officials with expertise in special education participated in some visits.
OESE also offered states other types of assistance. OESE created a  teacher quality newsletter, and the Office of the Under Secretary created  and then updated the No Child Left Behind Toolkit for Teachers booklet,  to help teachers understand the law in general, the highly qualified teacher  requirements, and to explain which teachers need to meet the NCLBA  requirements. However, while the tool kit provided detailed information  pertaining to general education teachers, it provided limited information  for special education teachers. According to OESE officials, the office had  also been developing a Web site on promising practices for implementing  the NCLBA teacher quality requirements and had plans to feature special  education on the site. However, at the time of our interviews, OESE did  not have a timeline for when this Web site would be available. Finally,  OESE also provided financial assistance to states through Improving  Teacher Quality state grants; states could use this financial assistance to  help special education teachers meet NCLBA teacher requirements.
section_title: Education’s Internal Coordination on Special Education Teacher Qualification Issues Was Limited
paragraphs: The enactment of NCLBA significantly changed the expectations for all  students and their teachers in the nation’s schools and increased the need  for OESE and OSEP to coordinate their efforts. NCLBA covers to a greater  extent than did previous educational legislation the groups that have  historically been the primary responsibility of OSEP—students with  disabilities and their teachers. Moreover, NCLBA established qualifications  for all teachers, including special education teachers, who provide  instruction in core academic subjects such as English, language arts,  mathematics, and science.
As state education officials began implementing NCLBA subject matter  competency requirements, they sought guidance from OSEP, their primary  source of information on special education issues. However, OSEP  officials told us that they had generally referred these officials to OESE or  to the NCLBA Web site. OSEP officials told us that they were waiting until  IDEA is reauthorized to develop their own guidance on special education  teacher quality requirements. However, during this time NCLBA  requirements applied to special educators teaching core academic  subjects, and several state officials told us they needed clarification of the  guidance on these requirements.
Coordination between OSEP and OESE has generally been limited. For  example, OSEP commented on the teacher quality policies and initiatives  that OESE developed, but generally was not involved in the initial  development of these policies. Education officials told us that OSEP was  included in the implementation of the teacher requirements, noting that  they contacted this office to clarify IDEA substantive issues and that OSEP  officials reviewed NCLBA guidance. OSEP did not participate in OESE’s  Teacher Assistance Corps visits to states and generally was not involved in  the analysis of the information that was collected from these visits. OESE  officials told us that they did not believe that states would benefit from  OSEP’s participation in these visits, because the focus of the visits was on  meeting the NCLBA requirements, not IDEA requirements. In addition,  Education told us that there were no written policies or procedures to  assist OESE and OSEP in coordinating the development and  implementation of its teacher quality policies for special education  teachers. Finally, these officials did not indicate that Education was  planning to develop such policies.
In March 2003, Education formed a teacher quality policy team under the  auspices of the Office of the Under Secretary and included other key  offices in Education such as the Office of the Secretary, the Office of  General Counsel, and OESE. This team, run by OESE, has focused on  NCLBA implementation related to teacher qualifications, and special  education teacher issues have been among the topics most frequently  discussed. OSEP was not a member of this team until April 2004, when  Education officials told us that OSEP had become a part of the team.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: NCLBA is a complex law with new requirements that hold states, districts,  and schools accountable for ensuring that their teachers meet specific  qualifications. Further, the law applies to all teachers, including special  education teachers, resulting in states and districts having to reassess how  they certify and assign special education teachers, as well as provide  professional development geared toward helping teachers meet  requirements.
State officials reported the need for assistance on how to meet NCLBA  requirements, with Education also noting the need for states to have more  information on strategies to meet requirements. Because half of the states  do not have subject matter competency requirements as part of special  education certification, these states in particular are challenged with  developing strategies to help their teachers meet NCLBA requirements.  Without additional assistance on such strategies, special education  teachers may not be positioned to meet requirements by the end of 2005- 2006 school year. In addition, several state education officials cited the  need for additional clarification on the application of the NCLBA subject  matter competency requirement to special education teachers in special  circumstances, for example those providing instruction to high school age  students who are performing at the elementary level. Without additional  assistance from Education to resolve state concerns related to special  education teacher qualification issues, some states might not be able to  determine how to focus their resources to ensure that their teachers meet  the act’s requirements.
NCLBA covers to a greater extent than did previous elementary and  secondary education acts the groups that have historically been the  primary responsibility of OSEP—students with disabilities and their  teachers. OESE has assumed primary responsibility for implementing  NCLBA, including provisions applying to special education teachers.  OESE has generally not relied on OSEP staff or information produced by  OSEP to develop policy or guidance. Consequently, OESE may not have  fully benefited from OSEP’s expertise to inform its NCLBA discussions on  policies and guidance related to special education teacher issues and  requirements. Although Education has recently added OSEP to its NCLBA  teacher quality policy team, overall NCLBA coordination efforts among  Education offices have not been formalized in writing to ensure  appropriate and continuing involvement of these offices. As a result, the  department may not fully address states’ needs for information and  assistance on the implementation of NCLBA requirements for special  education teachers.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better address states’ concerns about their special education teachers  being positioned to meet NCLBA teacher requirements, we recommend  that the Secretary of Education provide additional assistance to states on  strategies to meet the requirements and clarification of subject matter  competency requirements for special education teachers.
To continue to improve policy development and technical assistance that  Education’s offices provide to states on NCLBA requirements, we  recommend that Education formalize in writing coordination efforts  between OESE and OSEP. For example, such efforts could include  defining how OSEP’s expertise and staff would be involved in developing  NCLBA policies and guidance related to special education teachers and in  providing technical assistance to states.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.  In their comments, Education officials noted that they believed their  guidance was clear but recognized that states were still struggling to  identify strategies to meet requirements. Education officials provided new  information in their comments on the draft that indicated improved  coordination among those Education offices that are involved in NCLBA  policy development and guidance. Consequently, we modified the report  on both these topics to reflect Educations’ comments. Education officials  also provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report  where appropriate. Education’s comments are reproduced in appendix II.
Given the difficulties states are experiencing in implementing the law and  the level of uncertainty reported by state officials, we believe that  additional assistance needs to be provided by Education to help states  implement the requirements. In Education’s comments, the department  noted that states were having difficulty implementing NCLBA teacher  requirements. Education officials highlighted assistance they provided and  their willingness to provide additional technical assistance, depending on  what states need. We believe Education could help states by identifying  strategies to help states meet requirements, especially those states without  subject matter competency requirements for their special education  teachers. In addition, Education noted in its comments that guidance on  how to apply the NCLBA subject matter competency requirement for  special education teachers instructing high school age students  functioning at elementary school levels was not different from guidance  for all teachers. However, Education officials have also said that the  assessment level of a student could be considered in determining how to  apply the NCLBA teacher requirements. We encourage Education to  provide assistance to explain the requirements, particularly as they relate  to unusual circumstances involving varying student assessment levels. We  have modified the report to reflect Education’s comments.
We continue to believe that improved coordination is needed. However,  we modified the report to reflect Education’s recent addition of OSEP to  its teacher quality policy team. We acknowledge Education’s effort in this  regard and encourage the department to formalize its coordination  policies by putting them in writing. We believe that formalizing  coordination efforts will ensure that the different offices continue to be  involved in developing NCLBA policies and guidance related to special  education teachers.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Education, 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 GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any  questions about this report. Other contacts and major contributors are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Thirty-One States with Alternative Routes to Certification in Special Education during the 2002-2003 School Year
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Emily Leventhal, Benjamin Howe,  Ron La Due Lake, Luann Moy, Jean McSween, Bob DeRoy, Bryon Gordon,  Behn Kelly, and Amy Buck made key contributions to the report.