Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts
Published: 2007-05-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Teachers are the single largest resource in our nation's elementary and secondary education system. However, according to recent research, many teachers lack competency in the subjects they teach. In addition, research shows that most teacher training programs leave new teachers feeling unprepared for the classroom. While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments and institutions of higher education, the federal investment in enhancing teacher quality is substantial and growing. In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom and in 2001 the Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), which established federal requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified. This testimony focuses on (1) approaches used in teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA, (2) the allowable activities under these acts and how recipients are using the funds, and (3) how Education supports and evaluates these activities. This testimony is based on prior GAO reports. We updated information where appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA is to improve teacher quality, some of their specific approaches differ. For example, a major focus of HEA provisions is on the training of prospective teachers while NCLBA provisions focus more on improving teacher quality in the classroom and hiring highly qualified teachers. Both laws use reporting mechanisms to increase accountability; however, HEA focuses more on institutions of higher education while NCLBA focuses on schools and districts. In addition, HEA and NCLBA grants are funded differently, with HEA funds distributed through one-time competitive grants, while Title II under NCLBA provides funds annually to all states through a formula. Both acts provide states, districts, or grantees with the flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve teacher quality, including many activities that are similar, such as professional development and recruitment. A difference is that NCLBA's Title II specifies that teachers can be hired to reduce class-size while HEA does not specifically mention class-size reduction. Districts chose to spend about one-half of their NCLBA Title II funds on class-size reduction in 2004-2005. On the other hand, professional development and recruitment efforts were the two broad areas where recipients used funds for similar activities, although the specific activities varied somewhat. Many HEA grantees we visited used their funds to fill teacher shortages in urban schools or recruit teachers from nontraditional sources, such as mid-career professionals. Districts we visited used NCLBA funds to provide bonuses, advertise open teaching positions, and attend recruitment events, among other activities. Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. GAO's previous work identified areas where Education could improve its assistance on teacher quality efforts and more effectively measure the results of these activities. Education has made progress in addressing GAO's concerns by disseminating more information to recipients, particularly on teacher quality requirements, and improving how the department measures the results of teacher quality activities by establishing definitions and performance targets under HEA. While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it is not clear the extent to which they complement each other. States, districts, schools, and grantees under both laws engage in similar activities. However, not much is known about how well, if at all, these two laws are aligned. Thus, there may be opportunities to better understand how the two laws are working together at the federal, state, and local level.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the federal government’s  efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers are the single largest resource  in our nation’s elementary and secondary education system.  Approximately 3 million teachers are responsible for educating over 48  million students and they account for over one half of public school  expenditures ($215 billion) each year. Research has shown that teachers  play a significant role in improving student performance. However,   research has also shown that many teachers—especially those in high- poverty districts—lack competency in the subjects they teach and that  most teacher training programs leave new teachers feeling unprepared for  the classroom.
While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the responsibility of  state and local governments and institutions of higher education, the  federal investment in enhancing teacher quality is substantial and growing.  In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to  enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom by improving training  programs for prospective teachers and the qualifications of current  teachers. In 2001, the Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act  (NCLBA)—the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and  Secondary Education Act—which established federal requirements that all  teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified. In 2006, about $3  billion of federal funds were appropriated for NCLBA Title II and HEA  Title II to address teacher quality. Given that NCLBA and HEA are both  slated for reauthorization in 2007, this hearing presents a timely  opportunity to explore teacher quality provisions covered under those  laws.
This statement focuses on the approaches, implementation, and evaluation  of teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA. I will first provide  information on the goals, approaches, and funding of these programs.  Then I will discuss the allowable activities and how recipients are using  the funds. Finally, I will summarize our findings related to Education’s  support and evaluation of these activities.
My remarks today are drawn from previous GAO reports covering HEA  teacher quality programs and Title II under NCLBA, supplemented with  updated information. We updated information by interviewing state  officials, officials from institutions of higher education, and Education  officials. We also reviewed recent studies and Education documents. We  conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA is to improve  teacher quality, some of the specific approaches differ. For example,  HEA focuses more on training prospective teachers than NCLBA. In  addition, HEA and NCLBA are funded differently, with HEA funds  distributed through competitive grants, while Title II under NCLBA  provides funds annually to all states through a formula.
Both acts provide states, districts, and grantees with the flexibility to  use funds for a broad range of activities to improve teacher quality,  including many activities that are similar, such as professional  development and recruitment. A difference is that NCLBA’s Title II  specifies that teachers can be hired to reduce class size, while HEA  does not specifically mention class-size reduction. With the broad  range of activities allowed, we found both similarities and differences  in the activities undertaken.
Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and  guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding  recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. Our previous  work identified areas in which Education could improve its assistance  to states on their teacher quality efforts and more effectively measure  the results of these activities. Education has made progress in  addressing our concerns by disseminating more information to  recipients particularly on teacher quality requirements and activities  and improving how the department measures the results of teacher  quality activities by, for example, establishing performance targets.
subsections: section_title: Teacher Quality Provisions under HEA and NCLBA Have Somewhat Different Approaches and Are Funded Differently
paragraphs: While the overall goal of Title II under both HEA and NCLBA is to improve  student achievement by improving the teacher workforce, some of the  specific approaches differ. For example, a major focus of HEA provisions  is on the training of prospective teachers (preservice training) while  NCLBA provisions focus more on improving teacher quality in the  classroom (in service training) and hiring highly qualified teachers. Also,  both laws use reporting mechanisms to increase accountability. However,  HEA focuses more on institutions of higher education while NCLBA  focuses on schools and school districts. Additionally, HEA focuses on  expanding the teacher workforce by supporting recruitment from other  professions.
In addition, HEA and NCLBA Title II funds are distributed differently. HEA  teacher quality funds are disbursed through three distinct types of grants:  state, partnership, and recruitment grants. State grants are available for  states to implement activities to improve teacher quality in their states by  enhancing teacher training efforts, while partnership grants support the  collaborative efforts of teacher training programs and other eligible  partners. Recruitment grants are available to states or partnerships for  teacher recruitment activities.
All three types of grants require a match from non-federal sources. For  example, states receiving state grants must provide a matching amount in  cash or in-kind support from non-federal sources equal to 50 percent of  the amount of the federal grant. All three grants are one-time competitive  grants; however, state and recruitment grants are for 3 years while  partnership grants are for 5 years. HEA amendments in 1998 required that  45 percent of funds be distributed to state grants, 45 percent to  partnership grants, and 10 percent to recruitment grants. As of April 2007,  52 of the 59 eligible entities (states, the District of Columbia, and 8  territories) had received state grants. Because the authorizing legislation  specifically required that entities could only receive a state grant once,  only seven would be eligible to receive future state grants. In our 2002  report, we suggested that if Congress decides to continue funding teacher  quality grants in the upcoming reauthorization of HEA, it might want to  clarify whether all 59 entities would be eligible for state grant funding  under the reauthorization, or whether eligibility would be limited to only  those states that have not previously received a state grant. We also  suggested that if Congress decides to limit eligibility to entities that have  not previously received a state grant, it may want to consider changing the  45 percent funding allocation for state grants. In a 2005 appropriation act,  Congress waived the allocation requirement.  In 2006, about 9 percent of  funds were awarded for state grants, 59 percent for partnership grants,  and 33 percent for recruitment.  When Congress reauthorizes HEA, it may  want to further clarify eligibility and allocation requirements for this  program.
NCLBA, funded at a much higher level than HEA, provides funds to states  through annual formula grants. In 2006, Congress appropriated $2.89  billion through NCLBA and $59.9 million for HEA for teacher quality  efforts. While federal funding for teacher initiatives was provided through  two other programs prior to NCLBA, the act increased the level of funding  to help states and districts implement the teacher qualification  requirements. States and districts generally receive NCLBA Title II funds  based on the amount they received in 2001, the percentage of children  residing in the state or district, and the number of those children in low- income families. After reserving up to 1 percent of the funds for  administrative purposes, states pass 95 percent of the remaining funds to  the districts and retain the rest to support state-level teacher initiatives  and to support NCLBA partnerships between higher education institutions  and high-need districts that work to provide professional development to  teachers.
While there is no formula in NCLBA for how districts are to allocate funds  to specific schools, the act requires states to ensure that districts target  funds to those schools with the highest number of teachers who are not  highly qualified, schools with the largest class sizes, or schools that have  not met academic performance requirements for 2 or more consecutive  years. In addition, districts applying for Title II funds from their states are  required to conduct a districtwide needs assessment to identify their  teacher quality needs. NCLBA also allows districts to transfer these funds  to most other major NCLBA programs, such as those under Title I, to meet  their educational priorities.
section_title: Some HEA and NCLBA Funds Were Used for Similar Activities As Allowed under Both Acts
paragraphs: HEA provides grantees and NCLBA provides states and districts with the  flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve teacher  quality, including many activities that are similar under both acts. HEA  funds can be used, among other activities, to reform teacher certification  requirements, professional development activities, and recruitment efforts.  In addition, HEA partnership grantees must use their funds to implement  reforms to hold teacher preparation programs accountable for the quality  of teachers leaving the program. Similarly, acceptable uses of NCLBA  funds include teacher certification activities, professional development in  a variety of core academic subjects, recruitment, and retention initiatives.  In addition, activities carried out under NCLBA partnership grants are  required to coordinate with any activities funded by HEA. Table 1  compares activities under HEA and NCLBA.
With the broad range of activities allowed under HEA and NCLBA, we  found both similarities and differences in the activities undertaken. For  example, districts chose to spend about one-half of their NCLBA Title II  funds ($1.2 billion) in 2004-2005 on class-size reduction efforts, which is  not an activity specified by HEA. We found that some districts focused  their class-size reduction efforts on specific grades, depending on their  needs. One district we visited focused its NCLBA-funded class-size  reduction efforts on the eighth grade because the state already provided  funding for reducing class size in other grades. However, while class-size  reduction may contribute to teacher retention, it also increases the  number of classrooms that need to be staffed and we found that some  districts had shifted funds away from class-size reduction to initiatives to  improve teachers’ subject matter knowledge and instructional skills.  Similarly, Education’s data showed that the percent of NCLBA district  funds spent on class-size reduction had decreased since 2002-2003, when  57 percent of funds were used for this purpose.
HEA and NCLBA both funded professional development and recruitment  efforts, although the specific activities varied somewhat. For example,  mentoring was the most common professional development activity  among the HEA grantees we visited. Of the 33 HEA grant sites we visited,  23 were providing mentoring activities for teachers. In addition, some  grantees used their funds to establish a mentor training program to ensure  that mentors had consistent guidance. One state used the grant to develop  mentoring standards and to build the capacity of trainers to train teacher  mentors within each district. Some districts used NCLBA Title II funds for  mentoring activities as well. We also found that states and districts used  NCLBA Title II funds to support other types of professional development  activities. For example, two districts we visited spent their funds on math  coaches who perform tasks such as working with teachers to develop  lessons that reflected state academic standards and assisting them in using  students’ test data to identify and address students’ academic needs.  Additionally, states used a portion of NCLBA Title II funds they retained to  support professional development for teachers in core academic subjects.  In two states that we visited, officials reported that state initiatives  specifically targeted teachers who had not met the subject matter  competency requirements of NCLBA. These initiatives either offered  teachers professional development in core academic subjects or  reimbursed them for taking college courses in the subjects taught.
Both HEA and NCLBA funds supported efforts to recruit teachers. Many  HEA grantees we interviewed used their funds to fill teacher shortages in  urban schools or to recruit new teachers from nontraditional sources— mid-career professionals, community college students, and middle- and  high-school students. For example, one university recruited teacher  candidates with undergraduate degrees to teach in a local school district  with a critical need for teachers while they earn their masters in  education. The program offered tuition assistance, and in some cases, the  district paid a full teacher salary, with the stipulation that teachers  continue teaching in the local school district for 3 years after completing  the program. HEA initiatives also included efforts to recruit mid-career  professionals by offering an accelerated teacher training program for  prospective teachers already in the workforce. Some grantees also used  their funds to recruit teacher candidates at community colleges. For  example, one of the largest teacher training institutions in one state has  partnered with six community colleges around the state to offer training  that was not previously available. Finally, other grantees targeted middle  and high school students. For example, one district used its grant to  recruit interns from 14 high-school career academies that focused on  training their students for careers as teachers. Districts we visited used  NCLBA Title II funds to provide bonuses to attract successful  administrators, advertise open teaching positions, and attend recruitment  events to identify qualified candidates. In addition, one district also used  funds to expand alternative certification programs, which allowed  qualified candidates to teach while they worked to meet requirements for  certification.
Finally, some states used HEA funds to reform certification requirements  for teachers. Reforming certification or licensing requirements was  included as an allowable activity under both HEA and NCLBA to ensure  that teachers have the necessary teaching skills and academic content  knowledge in the subject areas. HEA grantees also reported using their  funds to allow teacher training programs and colleges to collaborate with  local school districts to reform the requirements for teacher candidates.   For example, one grantee partnered with institutions of higher education  and a partner school district to expose teacher candidates to urban  schools by providing teacher preparation courses in public schools.
section_title: Education Is Working to Provide Better Assistance and Improve Its Evaluation and Oversight Efforts
paragraphs: Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and  guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding  recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. In 1998, Education  created a new office to administer HEA grants and provide assistance to  grantees. While grantees told us that the technical assistance the office  provided on application procedures was helpful, our previous work noted  several areas in which Education could improve its assistance to HEA  grantees, in part through better guidance. For example, we recommended  that in order to effectively manage the grant program, Education further  develop and maintain its system for regularly communicating program  information, such as information on successful and unsuccessful  practices. We noted that without knowledge of successful ways of  enhancing the quality of teaching in the classroom, grantees might be  wasting valuable resources by duplicating unsuccessful efforts. Since 2002,  Education has made changes to improve communication with grantees  and potential applicants. For example, the department presented  workshops to potential applicants and updated and expanded its program  Web site with information about program activities, grant abstracts, and  other teacher quality resources. In addition, Education provided examples  of projects undertaken to improve teacher quality and how some of these  efforts indicate improved teacher quality in its 2005 annual report on  teacher quality.
Education also has provided assistance to states, districts and schools  using NCLBA Title II funds. The department offers professional  development workshops and related materials that teachers can access  online through Education’s website. In addition, Education assisted states  and districts by providing updated guidance. In our 2005 report, officials  from most states and districts we visited who use Education’s Web site to  access information on teacher programs or requirements told us that they  were unaware of some of Education’s teacher resources or had difficulty  accessing those resources. We recommended that Education explore ways  to make the Web-based information on teacher qualification requirements  more accessible to users of its Web site. Education immediately took steps  in response to the recommendation and reorganized information on its  website related to the teacher qualification requirements.
In addition to providing assistance and guidance, Education is responsible  for evaluating the efforts of HEA and NCLBA recipients and for overseeing  program implementation. Under HEA, Education is required to annually  report on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of  current teachers. In 2002, we found that the information collected for this  requirement did not allow Education to accurately report on the quality of  HEA’s teacher training programs and the qualifications of current teachers  in each state. In order to improve the data that states are collecting from  institutions that receive HEA teacher quality grants, and all those that  enroll students who receive federal student financial assistance and train  teachers, we recommended that Education should more clearly define key  data terms so that states provide uniform information. Further, in 2004, the  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed a Program  Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment of this program and gave it a  rating of “results not demonstrated,” due to a lack of performance  information and program management deficiencies. Education officials  told us that they had aligned HEA’s data collection system with NCLBA  definitions of terms such as “highly qualified teacher.” However, based on  the PART assessment, the Administration proposed eliminating funding  for HEA teacher quality grants in its proposed budgets for fiscal years  2006-2008, and redirecting the funds to other programs. Congress has  continued to fund this program in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
Education has responded to our recommendations and issues raised in the  PART assessment related to evaluating grantee activities and providing  more guidance to grantees on the types of information needed to  determine effectiveness.  When the Congress amended HEA in 1998 to  provide grants to states and partnerships, it required that Education  evaluate the activities funded by the grants.  In 2005, Education  established performance measures for two of the teacher quality  enhancement programs—state grants and partnership grants—and  required grantees to provide these data in their annual performance plans  submitted to Education. The performance measure for state grants is the  percentage of prospective teachers who pass subject matter tests, while  the measure for partnership grants is the percentage of participants who  complete the program and meet the definition of being “highly qualified.”  In addition, in 2006, Education included information in letters to grantees  on the types of information that it requires to assess the effectiveness of  its teacher quality programs. For example, in its letters to state grantees,  Education noted that when reporting on quantitative performance  measures, grantees must show how their actual performance compared to  the targets (e.g., benchmarks or goals) that were established in the  approved grant application for each budget period.
In addition, in May 2006, Education issued its final report on HEA’s  partnership grants, focusing on the 25 grantees of the 1999 cohort. The  goal of the study was to learn about the collaborative activities taking  place in partnerships. It was designed to examine approaches for  preparing new and veteran teachers and to assess the sustainability of  project activities after the grant ends. Among its findings, Education  reported that partnerships encouraged and supported collaboration  between institutions of higher education and schools to address teacher  preparation needs.
Under NCLBA, Education holds districts and schools accountable for  improvements in student academic achievement, and holds states  accountable for reporting on the qualifications of teachers. NCLBA set the  end of the 2005-2006 school year as the deadline for teachers of core  academic subjects, such as math and science, to be highly qualified.  Teachers meeting these requirements must (1) 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 they teach. Education  collects state data on the percent of classes taught by highly qualified  teachers and conducts site visits in part to determine whether states  appropriately implemented highly qualified teacher provisions.
In state reviews conducted as part of its oversight of NCLBA, Education  identified several areas of concern related to states’ implementation of  teacher qualification requirements and provided states feedback. For  example, some states did not include the percentage of core academic  classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified in their annual  state report cards, as required. In addition, because some states  inappropriately defined teachers as highly qualified, the data that these  states reported to Education were inaccurate according to a department  official. In many states, the requirements for teachers were not sufficient  to demonstrate subject matter competency. Since subject matter  competency is a key part of the definition of a highly qualified teacher,  such states’ data on the extent to which teachers have met these  requirements could be misleading. Education also found that a number of  states were incorrectly defining districts as high-need, in order to make  more districts eligible for partnerships with higher education institutions.  According to Education, each of these states corrected their data and the  department will continue to monitor states to ensure they are using the  appropriate data.
In addition to Education’s oversight efforts, OMB completed a PART  assessment of NCLBA Title II in 2005 and rated the program as  “moderately effective.” While OMB noted that the program is well- managed, it also noted that the program has not demonstrated cost- effectiveness and that an independent evaluation has not been completed  to assess program effectiveness. In response to OMB’s assessment,  Education took steps to more efficiently monitor states and conducted  two program studies related to teacher quality.  An Education official told  us that the program studies had been conducted but the department has  not yet released the findings.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: In conclusion, the nation’s public school teachers play a key role in  educating 48 million students, the majority of our future workforce.  Recognizing the importance of teachers in improving student  performance, the federal government, through HEA and NCLBA, has  committed significant resources and put in place a series of reforms aimed  at improving the quality of teachers in the nation’s classrooms. With both  acts up for reauthorization, an opportunity exists for the Congress to  explore potential interrelationships in the goals and initiatives under each  act.
While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it is  not clear the extent to which they complement each other. Our separate  studies of teacher quality programs under each of the laws have found  common areas for improvement, such as data quality and assistance from  Education. We have also found that states, districts, schools, and grantees  under both laws engage in similar activities. However, not much is known  about how well, if at all, these two laws are aligned. Thus, there may be  opportunities to better understand how the two laws are working together  at the federal, state, and local level. For example, exploring links between  efforts aimed at improving teacher preparation at institutions of higher  education and efforts to improve teacher quality at the school or district  level could identify approaches to teacher preparation that help schools  the most.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I welcome any  questions you or other Members of this Subcommittee may have at this  time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 202- 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include  Harriet Ganson, Bryon Gordon, Elizabeth Morrison, Cara Jackson, Rachel  Valliere, Christopher Morehouse, and Jessica Botsford.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.