This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-6 
entitled 'Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher 
Training, but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced' which 
was released on December 11, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Committees:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



December 2002:



Higher Education:



Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Reporting on These 

Activities Could Be Enhanced:



GAO-03-6:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-6, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, and Ranking 

Minority Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 

Representatives:



Why GAO Did This Study:



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. 

This report focuses on two components of the legislation: one that 

provides grants and another, called the “accountability provisions,” 

that requires collecting and reporting information on the quality of 

all teacher training programs and qualifications of current teachers.



What GAO Found:



The Department of Education has approved or awarded 123 grants to 
states 

and partnerships totaling over $460 million. Education awarded grants 
to 

applicants according to the legislation, but failed to maintain an 

effective system for communicating with grantees. Grantees have used 
funds 

for activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or 

state. While HEA allows many activities to be funded under broad 
program 

goals outlined in the legislation, most grantees have focused their 

efforts on reforming requirements for teachers, providing professional 

development to current teachers, and recruiting new teachers.  The 
extent 

to which these activities will affect the quality of teaching in the 

classroom will be difficult to determine because Education does not 
have 

a systematic approach to evaluate all grant activities.



The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did 
not 

allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher training 

programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each state.  The 

accountability provisions require all institutions that enroll students 

who receive federal student financial assistance and train teachers to 

provide information to their states on their teacher training programs 

and program graduates.  In order to facilitate the collection of this 

information, HEA required Education to develop definitions for terms 
and 

uniform reporting methods.  Education officials told GAO that they made 

significant efforts to define these terms so that the terms reflected 
the 

uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures, 
and 

data availability.  In doing so, Education defined some terms broadly.  

The officials also told GAO that this gave states and institutions 

discretion to interpret some terms as they wished, resulting in the 

collection and reporting of information that was not uniform and 
thereby 

making it difficult to assess accountability.



Highlights Figure:



[See PDF for image]



[End of image]



What GAO Recommends:



In order to effectively manage the grant program, GAO recommends that 
the 

Secretary of Education:



* further develop and maintain a system for regularly communicating 
program 

information with grantees and:



* establish a systematic approach for evaluating all grant activities.



To improve the information collected under the accountability 
provisions, 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education:



* define key terms from the legislation clearly and:



* allow sufficient time for the verification of the required 
information.



GAO’s report also includes a matter for consideration by the Congress.



In commenting on a draft of GAO’s report, Education generally agreed 
with 

the findings.



http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-6



To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the 

link above. For more information, contact Cornelia M. Ashby (202-512-
8403).



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



Education Awarded Grants in Accordance with Legislative Requirements, 

but Failed to Maintain an Effective System for Communicating with 

Grantees:



Grantees Used Funds for a Range of Activities, but Their Effectiveness 

Will Be Difficult to Determine:



The Extent to Which Grant Activities Will Affect the Quality of 

Teaching in the Classroom Will Be Difficult to Determine:



Information Collected and Reported for the Accountability Provisions 

Does Not Accurately Portray the Quality of Teacher Training Programs 

And the Qualifications of Teachers:



Conclusions:



Recommendations:



Matter for Congressional Consideration:



Agency Comments:



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Appendix II: Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher 

Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act:



Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities:



Appendix IV: Accountability Provision Description:



Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:



Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



Contacts:



Acknowledgments:



Tables:



Table 1: Grant Type, Funding Amounts, and Activities of Grantees We 

Visited:



Table 2: Legislative Requirements for Annual Reports:



Table 3: Selected Definitions for the Collection of Accountability 

Provision Information:



Figures:



Figure 1: Diagram of an Eligible Partnership:



Figure 2: Allocation of Grant Funds Available by Legislation:



Figure 3: Grant Applications Reviewed and Awarded the First Year of 

Grant Funding--1999:



Figure 4: Range of Funding for Grants by Grant Type:



Figure 5: States That Have Not Yet Received a State Grant:



Figure 6: Early Exposure to Teaching is a Recruitment Strategy Used by 

Several Grantees:



Figure 7: Criteria for Waiver Calculations Varies among Three 

Neighboring States:



Abbreviations:



HEAHigher Education Act:



SITE SUPPORTSchool Immersion Teacher Education and School

 University Partnership to Prepare Outstanding

 and Responsive Teachers:



United States General Accounting Office:



Washington, DC 20548:



December 11, 2002:



The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Chairman

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate:



The Honorable George Miller

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives:



The Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics 

recently reported that most teacher training programs leave new 

teachers feeling unprepared for the classroom. Because recent research 

reports that teachers are the most important factor in increasing 

student achievement, the quality of teacher training is critical. 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. 

This legislation is scheduled for reauthorization in 2003.



This report focuses on two components of the legislation: one that 

provides grants and another, called the “accountability provisions,” 

that requires collecting and reporting information on the quality of 

teacher training programs and qualifications of current teachers. The 

grants are given on a competitive basis to states or partnerships 

between higher education institutions and local school districts to 

fund activities that recruit and prepare new teachers, and develop and 

retain current teachers. Since 1998, Education has awarded or approved 

123 grants to states[Footnote 1] and partnerships totaling over $460 

million. The accountability provisions require all institutions that 

enroll students who receive federal student financial assistance and 

train teachers to provide information to their states on their teacher 

training programs and program graduates. States are required to 

consolidate some of this information into a report, supplement it with 

additional statewide education data, and submit it to Education. Using 

this information, Education is required to report annually to the 

Congress on the nationwide quality of teacher training programs and the 

qualifications of current teachers.



To prepare for the reauthorization of this legislation, the Congress 

wants to know whether the grants and reporting requirements are 

contributing to improving the quality of teaching in the classroom. 

This report addresses the following issues:



* how Education awarded grants and administered the grant program;



* what activities grantees funded and what results can be associated 

with these activities; and:



* whether the information collected under the accountability provisions 

allows for an accurate report on the quality of teacher training 

programs and the qualifications of current teachers.



* In October 2002, we reported our preliminary results to the 

Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, House Committee on 

Education and the Workforce.[Footnote 2]



To learn about the implementation of this legislation, we surveyed 

91 grantees, the total at the time of our survey, and conducted 33 site 

visits[Footnote 3] in 11 states--California, Connecticut, Georgia, 

Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Grantees in these states were selected 

because they represented almost half of the total grant funding at the 

time of our site visits, were providing a range of grant activities, 

and were geographically dispersed. We also interviewed Education 

officials and experts on teaching and teacher training. In addition, we 

reviewed relevant literature, regulations, and department documents. We 

conducted our work between December 2001 and November 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For 

details on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.



Results in Brief:



The Department of Education awarded grants to applicants in accordance 

with legislative requirements, but the new office set up to administer 

the grant program failed to maintain an effective system for 

communicating with grantees. The legislation outlined certain program 

requirements, including that states may receive a state grant only 

once, grant selection must be competitive, 45 percent of total grant 

funding be available for state grants, and that Education shall broadly 

disseminate information on successful and unsuccessful practices. 

However, the implementation of the grant program was left to Education. 

The department established the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office 

to determine the procedures by which the grants were to be awarded and 

administered. To ensure that the grants were awarded competitively, the 

office developed grant applications, advertised the grant opportunity 

to potential applicants, provided technical assistance to applicants, 

and convened panels to judge the applications. Once the grants were 

awarded, the office was charged with administering the grant program 

and, to do so, it developed some operating procedures for the program, 

such as the annual reporting mechanisms. However, we found that 

Education failed to maintain an effective system for communicating with 

grantees about reporting deadlines and successful and unsuccessful 

practices. Furthermore, 45 of 59 eligible states have already been 

approved for or awarded state grants, and because the authorizing 

legislation specifically requires that these grants can only be awarded 

once, only 14 states will be eligible to receive future state grants 

under the current authorizing legislation. Given this, and because the 

legislation requires that 45 percent of total grant funding be 

available for state grants, it is possible that some funding the 

Congress appropriates for teacher quality enhancement grants will 

remain unspent.



Grantees are using the flexibility the grant program allows to support 

activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or 

state, but the extent to which these activities will affect the quality 

of teaching in the classroom will be difficult to determine. While the 

legislation allows many activities to be funded, most grantees have 

focused their efforts on reforming requirements for teachers, providing 

professional development to current teachers, and recruiting new 

teachers. However, within these general areas, grantees’ efforts 

varied. For example, to address teacher shortages, the Los Angeles 

Unified School District targeted high school students and developed a 

program to attract young people to the field of teaching; whereas 

Southwest Texas State University, another grantee addressing teacher 

shortages, offered scholarships to mid-career professionals. The extent 

to which these activities will affect the quality of teaching in the 

classroom will be difficult to determine because Education does not 

have a systematic approach to evaluate all grant activities.



The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did 

not allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher 

training programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each 

state. The accountability provisions require all institutions that 

enroll students who receive federal student financial assistance and 

train teachers--not just those institutions receiving teacher quality 

enhancement grants--to provide information to their states on their 

teacher training programs and program graduates. In order to facilitate 

the collection of this information, the legislation required Education 

to develop definitions for key terms and uniform reporting methods, 

including the definitions for the consistent reporting of “pass rates”-

-the percentage of all graduates of a teacher training program who pass 

the state teacher certification examinations. Education officials told 

us that they made significant efforts to define these terms so that the 

terms reflected the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state 

reporting procedures, and data availability. In doing so, Education 

defined some terms broadly. Education officials told us that this gave 

states and institutions discretion to interpret some terms as they 

wished, resulting in the collection and reporting of information that 

was not uniform and thereby making it difficult to assess 

accountability. In addition, time spent verifying the information from 

states and institutions was limited, which contributed to the inclusion 

of inaccurate information in Education’s report to the Congress.



In this report, we make recommendations to the Secretary of Education 

to further develop and maintain an effective system for communicating 

with grantees and to evaluate all grant activities. To improve the 

information collected as part of the accountability provisions, we also 

recommend that the Secretary provide clear definitions of terms 

associated with the collection of required information and allow 

sufficient time for verification of information collected. 

Additionally, if the Congress decides to fund these grants as part of 

the reauthorization of HEA, it may want to clarify whether all 59 

states will be eligible for future state grant funding or whether 

eligibility would be limited to only those states that have not 

previously received a state grant.



In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of 

Education generally agreed with the reported findings. Education did 

state, however, that our report does not acknowledge the change of 

administration in 2001 and that it should identify the changes 

implemented by the current administration to address deficiencies. 

While our work covered questions and found problems with implementation 

under the current and prior administrations, a comparison of management 

under the two administrations is not within the scope of our work. 

Education also provided technical comments, which were incorporated 

when appropriate.



Background:



Over $460 million has been awarded or approved in grants under the 

1998 HEA amendments to enhance the quality of teacher training programs 

and the qualifications of current teachers. The legislation requires 

that states may receive a state grant only once and that the grants 

must be competitively awarded. Three types of grants were made 

available:



State grants are available for states to implement activities to 

improve teacher quality in their states.



Partnership grants are available to eligible partners to improve 

teacher quality through collaborative activities. Eligible 

partnerships must include at least three partners--teacher training 

programs, colleges of Arts and Sciences, and eligible local school 

districts.[Footnote 4] Partnerships may also include other groups, such 

as state educational agencies, businesses and nonprofit educational 

organizations as partners (see fig. 1).



Recruitment grants are available to states or partnerships to use their 

funding for activities to help recruit teachers.



Figure 1: Diagram of an Eligible Partnership:



[See PDF for image]



[End of image]



Because the legislation sets out broad program goals for which grant 

funds can be used--such as reforming state teacher certification 

requirements and recruiting new teachers--it allows grantees to support 

activities under these program goals they believe will improve teaching 

in their locality or state. The grants are flexible enough to allow 

grantees to use the funding for a wide range of activities aimed at 

improving the quality of teaching in the classroom. For example, 

grantees are allowed to provide scholarships and stipends as a 

recruitment effort for teacher candidates as well as provide laptop 

computers to new teachers in order to integrate technology into the 

classroom. Figure 2 shows the funding allocation provided by the 

legislation for the three types of grants.



Figure 2: Allocation of Grant Funds Available by Legislation:



[See PDF for image]



[End of image]



The legislation requires monitoring and evaluation of activities 

supported by these grants. Each grantee is required to submit an annual 

report to Education on its progress toward meeting program goals 

specified in the legislation, which must include performance objectives 

and measures to determine if grant activities were successful. The 

legislation also required Education to evaluate all grant activities 

and to broadly disseminate information about successful and 

unsuccessful practices.



In addition to the grants, the 1998 HEA amendments include an annual 

reporting requirement on the quality of teacher training programs and 

the qualifications of current teachers. This component of the 

legislation, called the “accountability provisions,” requires an annual 

three-stage process to collect and report information in a uniform and 

comprehensible manner. The reporting requirements under the 

accountability provisions mandated, for the first time, that colleges 

and universities who train teachers be held accountable for how well 

they prepared teachers. The legislation requires that Education, in 

consultation with states and teacher training institutions, develop 

definitions for key terms--including definitions for the consistent 

reporting of pass rates--and uniform reporting methods related to the 

performance of teacher training programs. Education officials told us 

that they made significant efforts to define key terms so that the 

terms reflected the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state 

reporting procedures, and data availability.



In the first stage, nearly every institution that prepares teachers--

not just those receiving teacher quality enhancement grants--is 

required to collect and report specific information to its state, 

including the pass rate of the institution’s graduates on state teacher 

certification examinations. Then in the second stage, states are 

required to report to Education the pass rate information institutions 

reported in the first stage, supplemented with additional statewide 

information, including a description of state certification 

examinations and the extent to which teachers in the state are allowed 

to teach without being fully certified. The third and final stage is 

comprised of a report to the Congress from the Secretary of Education 

on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of 

current teachers. The first round of institutional reports were 

submitted to states in April 2001; subsequently, state reports were 

submitted to Education in October 2001. Using this information, the 

Secretary of Education reported to the Congress in June 2002.[Footnote 

5]



How one determines the quality of teacher training programs and the 

qualifications of current teachers has long been debated. The debate is 

currently centered on the best way to train teachers: the traditional 

approach, which typically includes extensive courses in subject matter 

and pedagogy,[Footnote 6] or alternative training methods that either 

(1) accelerate the process of training teachers by reducing courses in 

pedagogy or (2) allow uncertified teachers to teach while receiving 

their training at night or on weekends. This debate is further 

complicated because the quality of teacher training programs and the 

qualifications for current teachers varies by state. Every state sets 

its own requirements for teacher certification, such as which 

certification examination(s)[Footnote 7] a teacher candidate must take, 

what score is considered passing on this examination, and how many 

hours teacher candidates must spend student teaching--practice teaching 

during their teacher preparation program--in order to become a fully 

certified teacher in that state. In this way, a teacher who is fully 

certified in one state may not meet the qualifications for 

certification in another state. For example, in Virginia, Minnesota and 

Mississippi, teacher candidates are required to take the same test to 

be certified to teach high school mathematics. But teacher candidates 

in Virginia must score 178 (50th percentile of all test takers) to pass 

the examination, whereas in Minnesota and Mississippi teacher 

candidates must score 169 (20th percentile of all test takers).



While the 1998 HEA amendments provided grants and reporting 

requirements to improve the quality of teacher training programs and 

the qualifications of teachers, it was not until the recent No Child 

Left Behind Act that the Congress defined a highly qualified 

teacher.[Footnote 8] For the purposes of that act, the legislation 

defines highly qualified teachers as those who demonstrate competence 

in each subject they teach, hold bachelors degrees, and are fully 

certified to teach in their state. See appendix II for more information 

on HEA and the No Child Left Behind Act.



Education Awarded Grants in Accordance with Legislative Requirements, 

but Failed to Maintain an Effective System for Communicating with 

Grantees:



Education awarded grants to applicants according to the legislation but 

failed to maintain an effective system for communicating with grantees. 

The legislation outlined certain program requirements, such as the 

requirement that states may receive a state grant only once, that 

45 percent of total grant funding be available for state grants, and 

that Education shall broadly disseminate information on successful and 

unsuccessful practices. However, it left the implementation of the 

grant program to Education. The department established the Teacher 

Quality Enhancement Grant Office to determine the procedures by which 

the grants were to be awarded and administered. Once the grants were 

awarded, the office was charged with administering the grant program 

and, to do so, it developed some operating procedures for the program. 

However, Education failed to maintain an effective system for 

communicating with grantees about reporting deadlines and successful 

and unsuccessful practices.



New Office Awarded Grants According to the Legislation:



Soon after the legislation was passed in 1998, Education created a new 

office, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office, that set the 

grant program in motion by developing applications, advertising the 

grant opportunities, and convening technical review sessions for 

potential applicants. When the office was first established, it 

conducted focus groups with representatives from different areas--

states, local school districts, institutions that train teachers, and 

community groups--to decide how to implement the legislation. Education 

officials used this input to develop applications for the state, 

partnership, and recruitment grants. Education officials advertised the 

grants and provided opportunities for potential applicants to receive 

technical assistance on the application procedures. These technical 

assistance sessions, which grantees told us were helpful, were offered 

across the country and allowed Education officials to answer questions 

and explain the criteria by which applications would be judged.



In accordance with the legislation, the office provided funding to 

state agencies and partnerships between higher education institutions 

and local school districts with three types of grants--state, 

partnership, and recruitment--through a competitive process. The 

legislation required Education to use peer reviewers to determine which 

applicants would receive grant funding. The office convened panels of 

peer reviewers to judge the applications. Each peer review panel 

consisted of representatives from local school districts, states, 

community groups, teacher training programs, and colleges of Arts and 

Sciences. In 1999, the first year grants were available, the peer 

review panel reviewed 371 applications: 41 for state grants, 222 for 

partnership grants, and 108 for recruitment grants. Of these 

applications, the office awarded 24 state grants, 25 partnership 

grants, and 28 recruitment grants (see fig. 3). Since then an 

additional 21 state, 8 partnership, and 17 recruitment grants have been 

awarded or approved using the same process.[Footnote 9] Between 1999 

and 2002, the office awarded or approved a total of 123 

grants.[Footnote 10]



Figure 3: Grant Applications Reviewed and Awarded the First Year of 

Grant Funding--1999:



[See PDF for image]



Source: U.S. Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant 

Office.



[End of image]



Grant duration and funding amount vary depending on the type of grant. 

According to the legislation, grants can be awarded to states and 

partnerships only once, though the funding is dispersed over several 

years.[Footnote 11] State and recruitment grantees receive funding for 

three years, whereas partnership grantees receive funding for up to 

five years.



State grants ranged from just over $500,000 awarded to Idaho to 

$13.5 million awarded to Virginia. Partnership grant awards ranged from 

$1.2 million awarded to Graceland University in Iowa to over $13.2 

million awarded to Arizona State University. Recruitment grants ranged 

from $523,890 awarded to Norfolk State University to $1.4 million 

awarded to the San Diego University Foundation (see fig. 4). When we 

divided total grant awards by the duration of the grants, the average 

annual award for state grants ($1.6 million) was larger than the 

average annual award for partnership grants ($1.2 million), and the 

average annual award for recruitment grants ($340,054) was the 

smallest.



Figure 4: Range of Funding for Grants by Grant Type:



[See PDF for image]



Source: U.S. Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant 

Office.



[End of image]



Forty-five of 59 eligible states have already been approved for or 

awarded state grants, and because the legislation specifically requires 

that these grants can only be awarded once, only 14 states will be 

eligible to receive future state grants under the current authorizing 

legislation (see fig. 5). Given this, and because the legislation 

requires that 45 percent of total grant funding be available for state 

grants, it is possible that some funding the Congress appropriates for 

teacher quality enhancement grants will remain unspent.



Figure 5: States That Have Not Yet Received a State Grant:



[See PDF for image]



[End of image]



Education Failed to Maintain an Effective System for Communicating with 

Grantees:



Grantees reported that Education failed to maintain an effective system 

for communicating with them about reporting deadlines and successful 

and unsuccessful practices. Communication from Education to the 

grantees, specifically the frequency and accuracy of Education’s 

efforts, was problematic. Education officials and grantees reported 

that in the beginning of the grant program, staff assigned to assist 

grantees communicated with them regularly, informing them of reporting 

deadlines and answering specific questions related to the grant 

program. However, the office experienced several disruptions in staff 

and management, and grantees told us that this level of communication 

with Education was not maintained. Since the grant program began 4 

years ago, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Office has had five 

different managers, and staff in the office has fallen from nine to 

two. Several officials at Education told us that the constant changes 

in the office led to a lack of program continuity, which affected the 

communication with grantees. Almost 75 percent of the grantees 

reported that the management and staff turnover at Education had been 

a problem.



In addition, grantees reported that some information received from 

Education was inaccurate, which led to additional work for the grantees 

when they were eventually informed of the right information. For 

example, grantees needed to be informed of what information to include 

in their required annual report and when to submit it to Education. 

Many grantees we visited told us that because Education failed to 

maintain an effective system of communicating this information, they 

were given incorrect information on what data to include in their 

annual reports, making it necessary for the grantee to collect and 

analyze data twice.



Further, the legislation requires Education to broadly disseminate 

information about successful and unsuccessful practices, but we found 

that Education did not adequately carry out this requirement. Grantees 

told us that having access to information about successful and 

unsuccessful practices would save them time and money in administering 

their grants. Although a national conference of grantees has been held 

each year since the grants began and some grantees have been able to 

participate in a few multigrantee telephone conference calls, grantees 

reported that these efforts did not adequately allow them to share 

ideas on successful and unsuccessful practices. For example, some 

grantees told us that requiring teacher candidates to attend classes on 

the weekends was an unsuccessful strategy, because few candidates could 

attend at that time. However, because Education did not broadly 

disseminate this information, several grantees told us that they wasted 

time and money learning this on their own by offering Saturday courses 

only to have them sparsely attended.



Grantees Used Funds for a Range of Activities, but Their Effectiveness 

Will Be Difficult to Determine:



Grantees are using the flexibility the grant program allows to support 

activities they believe will improve teaching in their locality or 

state, but no system is in place to determine if these activities will 

affect the quality of teaching in the classroom. While the legislation 

allows many activities to be funded under broad program goals outlined 

in HEA, most grantees have focused their efforts on reforming 

requirements for teachers, providing professional development to 

current teachers, and recruiting new teachers. The extent to which 

these activities will affect the quality of teaching in the classroom 

will be difficult to determine because Education does not have a 

systematic approach to evaluate all grant activities.



Grantees Used Funds for a Variety of Activities:



The legislation outlines broad program goals for improving the quality 

of teaching with grant funds but provides grantees with the flexibility 

in deciding the most suitable approach for improving teaching. Our 

survey and site visits showed that most grantees focused on three types 

of activities: (1) reforming requirements for teachers, (2) providing 

professional development and support for current teachers, and 

(3) recruiting new teachers. Grantees could focus on only one activity, 

but all grantees responding to our survey focused on a combination of 

activities. In our survey, we found that 85 percent of the respondents 

were using their grant funds to reform the requirements for teachers, 

85 percent of the respondents were using their grant funds for 

professional development and support for current teachers, and 72 

percent of the respondents were using their grant funds for recruitment 

efforts. Table 1 shows the activities grantees we visited told us they 

provided.



Table 1: Grant Type, Funding Amounts, and Activities of Grantees We 

Visited:



Grant awarded to: State grants; Amount funded: [Empty]; Reforming 

requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing; 

Amount funded: $10,588,598; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Connecticut State Department of Education; Amount 

funded: $1,764,447; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Georgia Board of Regents; Amount funded: $9,949,480; 

Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Illinois Board of Higher Education; Amount funded: 

$4,068,086; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Maryland State Department of Education; Amount 

funded: $5,632,049; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Massachusetts Department of Education; Amount funded: 

$3,524,149; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; 

Amount funded: $8,379,462; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education; Amount funded: $3,358,502; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Tennessee Department of Education; Amount funded: 

$1,745,465; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Texas State Board for Teacher Certification; Amount 

funded: $10,751,154; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; Amount 

funded: $3,283,720; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Partnership grants; Amount funded: [Empty]; Reforming 

requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Northern California Partnership Grant (California 

State University-Sacramento); Amount funded: $1,277,426; Reforming 

requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program 

(GSTEP); (University of Georgia); Amount funded: $6,492,635; Reforming 

requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Illinois Teacher Education Partnership (National 

Louis University); Amount funded: $6,308,245; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Illinois Professional Learners’ Partnership (Illinois 

State University); Amount funded: $12,611,607; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher 

Quality; (Western Kentucky University); Amount funded: $5,711,847; 

Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Project SITE SUPPORT

(The Johns Hopkins University); Amount funded: $12,660,901; Reforming 

requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Project Learning in Communities (LINC) (University 

System of Maryland); Amount funded: $4,187,912; Reforming requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and 

Student Achievement

(Boston College); Amount funded: $7,168,926; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Teaching Matters, Quality Counts; (North Carolina 

Central University); Amount funded: $3,781,980; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom 

Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT)

(University of Tennessee-Chattanooga); Amount funded: $3,270,959; 

Reforming requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Project Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology 

(CoMeT); (Our Lady of the Lake University); Amount funded: $5,604,478; 

Reforming requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Institute for School-University Partnerships (Texas 

A&M University); Amount funded: $11,623,979; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Amount funded: 

$8,456,364; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: X; Recruiting new 

teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Recruitment grants; Amount funded: [Empty]; Reforming 

requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Los Angeles Unified School District; Amount funded: 

$956,261; Reforming requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Oakland Unified School District; Amount funded: 

$1,026,168; Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: San Diego State University Foundation; Amount funded: 

$1,412,828; Reforming requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: University of California--Los Angeles 

(University of California Regents Office); Amount funded: $1,213,295; 

Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Connecticut State Department of Education; Amount 

funded: $938,428; Reforming requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Teacher Recruitment Initiative in Tennessee (TRI-IT!)

(University of Tennessee-Chattanooga); Amount funded: $1,193,297; 

Reforming requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Teacher Recruitment and Induction Project (TRIP); 

(Southwest Texas State University); Amount funded: $1,051,241; 

Reforming requirements

for teachers: [Empty]; Providing professional development: X; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Grant awarded to: Milwaukee Public Schools; Amount funded: $844,357; 

Reforming requirements

for teachers: X; Providing professional development: [Empty]; 

Recruiting new teachers: X.



Note: Shading is used to show how the grants differ.



Source: GAO’s analysis of grant activities from site visits and 

documents from the U.S. Department of Education.



[End of table]



Reforming Requirements for Teachers:



Most grantees reported using their funds to reform requirements for 

teachers. Since every state sets its own requirements for teacher 

certification, such as how many hours a teacher candidate must spend 

student teaching to become a fully certified teacher in that state, 

some state grantees reported using their funds to reform the 

certification requirements for teachers in their state. Grantees also 

reported using their funds to allow teacher training programs and 

colleges of Arts and Sciences to collaborate with local school 

districts to reform the requirements for teacher training programs to 

ensure that teacher candidates are trained appropriately. Some examples 

of these reforms include the following:



* Requirements for teacher certification--During our site visits, we 

found that many state grantees are reforming their state certification 

requirements to ensure that new teachers have the necessary teaching 

skills and knowledge in the subject areas in which they will teach. For 

example, Illinois does not currently have a separate middle school 

(grades 5 through 9) certification. Most middle school teachers in 

Illinois are instead certified to teach elementary or high school. 

However, recognizing that this does not adequately address the 

preparation needs of middle school teachers, state officials intend to 

use the grant to create a new certification for middle school teachers. 

This new certification would require middle school teachers to 

demonstrate specialized knowledge on how to best instruct adolescents.



* Requirements for teacher training programs--To improve the quality of 

teachers, states reported reforming their requirements for teacher 

training programs. For example, Wisconsin used some of its grant funds 

to develop a strategy to hold institutions accountable for the quality 

of the preparation they provide their teacher candidates. This strategy 

ensured that teacher candidates in every teacher training program 

receive instruction that prepares them to meet state 

standards.[Footnote 12] To begin this effort, the state developed a 

handbook of standards, procedures, and policies for teacher training 

programs. In addition, the state plans to enforce these requirements by 

conducting a thorough review of each teacher training program. 

Wisconsin and other states we visited are also ensuring that training 

provided through alternative routes--routes to certification that are 

not provided by regular teacher training programs--are meeting similar 

requirements.



* Requirements for teacher candidates--Many teacher training programs 

reported that they were reforming the requirements for teacher 

candidates by revising the required coursework. For example, the grant 

officials from the Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and 

Student Achievement reported that they wanted to provide teacher 

candidates with exposure to schools earlier than was typical in 

training programs. To do so, they revised their curriculum so that some 

of their required teacher preparation courses were set in public 

schools, giving teacher candidates an opportunity to experience the 

school environment prior to student teaching. Grant officials expressed 

that this strategy would increase the chances that these teachers would 

be successful because the teachers would be better prepared for the 

realities of the classroom.



Providing Professional Development and Support for Current Teachers:



Many grantees reported having high teacher turnover and saw a need for 

providing professional development and other support in order to retain 

current teachers. The primary goal of professional development 

activities is to provide training and support for current teachers with 

the intention of improving their skills and retaining them in the 

classroom. Grantees used their funds for a variety of activities that 

provided professional development and support, such as providing 

coursework towards an advanced degree and assigning mentor teachers to 

new teachers.



During our site visits, we found that mentoring was the most common 

professional development activity. Of the 33 grant sites we visited, 

23 grants were providing mentoring activities. Many of the grantees we 

visited reported that mentoring programs are beneficial to the mentor 

teacher as well as the new teacher. The mentor can coach the new 

teacher on how to best instruct students and adjust to his or her job. 

In return, a mentor teacher may benefit from additional training and 

compensation. Some grantees used their funds to establish a mentor 

training program to ensure that mentors had consistent guidance. For 

example, Rhode Island used its grant funds to allow two experienced 

teachers to tour the state to provide training to future mentor 

teachers and help schools set up mentoring programs. Officials in Rhode 

Island believed this was an effective way to ensure that new teachers 

receive quality support.



Recruiting New Teachers:



Many grantees reported having a teacher shortage in their area and used 

the grant funds to develop various teacher-recruiting programs. Of the 

grant sites we visited, many grantees were using 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.



The following are examples of grantees using their funds to fill 

shortages in urban areas or to recruit new teachers from nontraditional 

sources:



* Recruiting for urban school districts--Grantees that were 

experiencing a teacher shortage in their urban schools often provided 

various incentives for teacher candidates to commit to teaching in 

urban environments. For example, “Project SITE SUPPORT”[Footnote 13] 

housed at the Johns Hopkins University recruits teacher candidates with 

an undergraduate degree to teach in a local school district with a 

critical need for teachers while, at the same time, earning their 

masters in education. The program offers tuition assistance, and in 

some cases, the district pays a full teacher salary. As part of the 

terms of the stipend, teachers are required to continue teaching in the 

local school district for 3 years after completing the program. Grant 

officials told us that this program prepared teacher candidates for 

teaching in an urban environment and makes it more likely that they 

will remain in the profession.



* Recruiting mid-career professionals--Many grantees targeted mid-

career professionals by offering an accelerated teacher training 

program. For example, the Teacher Recruitment and Induction Project at 

Southwest Texas State University offered scholarships to mid-career 

professionals to offset the cost of classes required for teacher 

certification. The scholarships paid for a 1-year, full-time program 

that results in teaching certificates and 18 hours of graduate level 

credits for teacher candidates. Grantee officials told us that because 

the grant covers the Austin, Texas, area--an area with many technology 

organizations--they have been able to recruit highly skilled 

individuals who can offer a variety of real-life applications to many 

of the classes they teach.



* Recruiting from community colleges--Some grantees have used their 

funds to recruit teacher candidates at community colleges. For example, 

National Louis University, one of the largest teacher training 

institutions in Illinois, has partnered with six community colleges 

around the state of Illinois so that the community colleges can offer 

training that was not previously available. The grant pays for a 

University faculty member to teach on each of the community college 

campuses. This program allows community colleges in smaller, rural 

communities to provide teacher training without teacher candidates 

incurring the cost of attending National Louis University--a large 

private university. A grant program official told us that school 

districts in these areas will have a greater chance of recruiting new 

teachers trained at one of these community colleges because they were 

most likely to be from that community.



* Recruiting middle and high school students--Other grantees target 

middle and high school students. For example, the Los Angeles Unified 

School District develops programs to attract high school students to 

the field of teaching. The majority of its grant resources has been 

used to fund a paid 6-week high school internship for students to work 

in the classroom with a teacher.[Footnote 14] The high school intern 

spends most days with a teacher in the classroom (see fig. 6). The 

intern’s activities could include helping the teacher correct papers 

and plan activities. Once a week, interns have a class with a grant-

funded teacher on curriculum and lesson planning. The grant official 

told us that the internship introduces younger people to teaching as a 

profession and, therefore, may increase the chances that they will 

become teachers in the future.



Figure 6: Early Exposure to Teaching is a Recruitment Strategy Used by 

Several Grantees:



[See PDF for image]



Source: Department of Education archives.



[End of image]



The Extent to Which Grant Activities Will Affect the Quality of 

Teaching in the Classroom Will Be Difficult to Determine:



The extent to which grant activities will affect the quality of 

teaching in the classroom will be difficult to determine. Although the 

legislation mandates that Education evaluate all grant activities, we 

found that Education does not have a systematic approach to do so. 

Education does have one study underway to evaluate some grant 

activities; however, this study is limited to only one type of grant--

partnership grants. In addition, grantees told us that they were given 

little guidance from Education on what types of information to collect 

in order to determine the effects of their grant activities. Even 

though Education has not determined the extent to which these 

activities affect the quality of teaching in the classroom, grantees 

told us that they have used grant funds to improve the quality of 

teacher training programs and the qualifications of current teachers.



When the Congress amended HEA in 1998 to provide grants to states and 

partnerships, it required that Education evaluate all activities funded 

by the grants. Education began a study in 2000 of state and recruitment 

grants awarded in 1999. However, this study was cancelled by Education 

before it was completed, and no preliminary findings were released. 

Education officials cited the change in the department’s administration 

when explaining why the evaluation was abandoned. Education has also 

been conducting a 5-year study of some grants. Although this evaluation 

is designed to take a comprehensive look at grant activities, it is 

only looking at partnership grants awarded in 1999, making this study 

too limited for its result to apply to all grant activities. Because 

the grants last only 3 to 

5 years, Education may have lost its only opportunity to collect the 

necessary information to determine if some grant activities have 

affected the quality of teaching in the classroom.



In addition, Education did not provide adequate guidance to grantees on 

what types of information to collect in order to determine the results 

of their grant activities. For example, in order to determine results, 

a grantee would need to collect information before and after the 

activity for the group benefiting, as well as for a comparison group. 

Many grantees told us that they did not collect this information 

because Education did not provide them guidance on what types of 

information to collect. The legislation required grantees to submit an 

annual report on their progress toward meeting the program’s purposes-

-such as increased student achievement--and its goals, objectives, and 

measures (see table 2). Education officials provided only limited 

guidance--through brief descriptions in the application packet and 

intermittent conversations with grantees that requested assistance--on 

what information to include in the annual report. Thus, the information 

that most grantees reported did not allow Education to adequately 

determine the results of their grant activities.



Table 2: Legislative Requirements for Annual Reports:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO’s analysis of HEA.



[End of image]



[End of table]



Even though Education has not determined the extent to which all grant 

activities affect the quality of teaching in the classroom, grantees 

told us that they have used grant funds to improve the quality of 

teacher training programs and the qualifications of current teachers. 

For example, some grantees have been able to increase the number of 

teacher candidates served through their grant programs. Many grantees 

also told us that the partnerships and alliances formed through the 

grant program have had and will continue to have positive effects on 

their ability to address the quality of teaching in the classroom. For 

more information on grant activities, see appendix III.



Information Collected and Reported for the Accountability Provisions 

Does Not Accurately Portray the Quality of Teacher Training Programs 

And the Qualifications of Teachers:



The information collected as part of the accountability provisions did 

not allow Education to accurately report on the quality of teacher 

training programs and the qualifications of current teachers in each 

state. The accountability provisions require all institutions that 

enroll students who receive federal student financial assistance and 

train teachers--not just those institutions receiving teacher quality 

enhancement grants--to provide information to their states on their 

teacher training programs and program graduates.[Footnote 15] In order 

to facilitate the collection of this information, the legislation 

required Education to develop definitions for key terms and uniform 

reporting methods, including the definitions for the consistent 

reporting of pass rates. Education officials told us that they made 

significant efforts to define these terms so that the terms reflected 

the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting 

procedures, and data availability. In doing so, Education defined some 

terms broadly. Education officials told us that this gave states and 

institutions discretion to interpret some terms as they wished--

resulting in the collection and reporting of information that was not 

uniform and thereby making it difficult to assess accountability. In 

addition, time spent verifying the information from states and 

institutions was limited. This limited verification led to the 

inclusion of inaccurate information in Education’s report to the 

Congress.



The Definitions of Some Key Terms Allowed for Inconsistent Reporting:



Education defined some key terms broadly, resulting in inconsistent 

reporting by states and institutions. The accountability provisions 

required states and institutions to report information, such as the 

percentage of an institution’s graduates who pass the state 

certification examination, also known as the pass rate. In order to 

gather information on the pass rate, Education first needed to define 

graduate. Education officials told us that in many teacher training 

programs, candidates do not graduate with a degree in teacher training, 

but rather receive a certificate. Therefore, Education did not define 

graduate but rather created the term “program completer” to encompass 

all those who met all the requirements of a state-approved teacher 

preparation program. Table 3 explains our analysis of the information 

HEA required to be collected, the way that Education defined selected 

terms to collect the information, and the reporting implications of 

Education’s definitions. Our survey indicated that 

41 percent of respondents found compliance with reporting requirements 

a challenge due to ambiguous definitions.



Table 3: Selected Definitions for the Collection of Accountability 

Provision Information:



Term: Graduate; Legislative requirements: To identify the percentage of 

all graduates at a teacher training institution who successfully passed 

the state certification examination(s).; Education’s definition: 

Education did not define the term graduate, but rather used the term 

“program completer” and defined it as someone who has met the 

requirements of a state-approved, teacher-training program.; Reporting 

implications: Some institutions only reported candidates who completed 

all course work and passed the state certification examination. In 

calculating the pass rate, these institutions did not include those 

students who passed the course work but failed the examination. As a 

result, these institutions reported a 100-percent pass rate, which is 

not informative to the Congress or the public on the quality of the 

teacher training programs at those institutions..



Term: Waiver; Legislative requirements: To identify the number of 

teachers who are teaching without state certification.; Education’s 

definition: Any temporary or emergency permit, license, or other 

authorization that permits an individual to teach in a public school 

classroom without having received an initial certificate or license (as 

defined by the state) from that state or any other state.; Reporting 

implications: Some states defined an initial certificate or license so 

broadly that it allowed them to report few or no teachers as teaching 

on waivers..



Term: Alternative route to certification

or licensure; Legislative requirements: To identify a route to 

certification that is not a regular teacher training program.; 

Education’s definition: As defined by the state.; Reporting 

implications: Some states defined alternative route so narrowly that it 

allowed them to report that few or no teachers had taken an alternative 

route to certification..



Source: GAO’s analysis of HEA, Department of Education regulations, and 

state Title II reports.



[End of table]



Thus, using definitions provided by Education, states and institutions 

could report information that made their programs seem more successful 

than they might have been. Institutions could inflate their pass rate 

by reporting only on those teacher candidates who completed all 

coursework and passed the state teacher certification examination 

without including any information on teacher candidates who completed 

all coursework but failed the examination--thus ensuring a 100-percent 

pass rate. During our review, we found that a few states and many 

institutions are inflating their pass rates to 100-percent. For 

instance, we found that in at least three state reports to Education, 

every institution reported 100-percent pass rates. Those institutions 

included in their calculations only those teacher candidates they 

determined to be program completers--those who passed the state 

certification examination and met the state’s other requirements--

excluding those who failed the examination. While requiring teacher 

candidates to pass the state certification examination as part of a 

teacher training program is not a problem, in and of itself, reporting 

on only those candidates who pass the test does not provide the basis 

to assess the quality of teacher training programs. For example, some 

institutions in Georgia reported 100-percent pass rates in their 

institutional report to the state, and Georgia, in turn, included these 

100-percent pass rates in its state report to Education. However, as 

part of a state effort--separate from the federal accountability 

provisions--to hold institutions accountable for how well they prepare 

teachers, Georgia requires institutions to submit pass rates that 

include those who fail the examination to the state each year. This 

resulted in lower institutional pass rates than those included in the 

report to Education but is a calculation closer to what the Congress 

intended Education to collect as part of the accountability provisions.



In other instances, Education allowed states to define some key terms 

from the legislation in a way that was applicable to their state 

because of the variability in how states defined terms and collected 

information. This allowed states to define terms so that they could 

cast the quality of their teacher training programs and the 

qualifications of their current teachers in the most positive light. 

For example, the accountability provisions required that states report 

on the number of teachers on waivers--defined by Education as those 

teachers currently teaching without having received an initial 

certificate or license. Because Education allowed each state to define 

initial certificate or license for itself, each state reported 

different information in its waiver count. Figure 7 presents 

information from three neighboring states--Maryland, Virginia, and 

Washington, D.C.--with different definitions of certification leading 

to variations in who was included in their waiver count. The degree of 

this variation from state to state is unknown. Thus, the data collected 

for the Congress does not present an accurate account of teachers who 

are not fully certified.



Figure 7: Criteria for Waiver Calculations Varies among Three 

Neighboring States:



[See PDF for image]



[End of image]



The Data Collection Process Contributed to Inaccurate Information:



In addition to the problems with the definitions, the fact that the 

information collected was not adequately verified led to the inclusion 

of inaccurate information on the quality of teacher training programs 

and the qualifications of current teachers. The contractor hired by 

Education to collect the information allowed states to submit their 

information in different computer formats. The contractor told us that 

this was done to make the reporting process easier on the state 

agencies. Once received, this information was put into a standard 

format in order to report to the Congress. Although states were 

required to certify the information they reported was accurate, errors 

occurred because of the way the information was collected. Therefore, 

it was even more important that the information be verified. However, 

the contractor stated that because it did not have enough time to 

verify the information from states and institutions, inaccurate 

information was included in the report to the Congress. The contractor 

stated that 2 to 3 months would have been sufficient to verify the 

information submitted to Education. Because it was only given 3 weeks 

to verify, analyze, and report the information, a thorough job could 

not be done. Alternatively, an audit of the data that states submit 

would replace the need for additional time for data verification, but 

department officials told us that they lack the resources for such an 

audit.



Additionally, it was not always obvious to the contractor which 

information was inaccurate--for example, what a “typical” range of pass 

rates might be--and the contractor acknowledged that this also led to 

the inclusion of some inaccurate information. When we contacted eight 

states to check the accuracy of the information, we found errors in the 

information for three of these states. In addition, a recent study 

found that the information collected from South Carolina was not 

accurate.[Footnote 16] South Carolina reported that 5.4 percent of its 

teachers were not fully certified but, according to this study, this 

information--which was reported to Education--included only 57 of 86 

school districts in the state.



Education officials told us that the data collection process has been 

changed for the second round of collection of information. (For more 

information on HEA’s accountability provisions, see appendix IV.):



Conclusions:



In recognition of the importance of the quality of teaching in the 

classroom, the Congress amended HEA to provide grant funds to improve 

training programs for prospective teachers and the qualifications of 

current teachers, but certain aspects of the administration of those 

grant funds may make the legislation less effective than it could be. 

For example, because Education has not always disseminated information 

to grantees effectively, grantees without knowledge of successful ways 

of enhancing the quality of teaching in the classroom might be wasting 

valuable resources by duplicating unsuccessful efforts. In addition, 

because Education does not have a system to thoroughly evaluate grant 

activities--including providing guidance to grantees on the types of 

information needed to determine effectiveness--information on what 

activities improve the quality of teaching in the classroom will not be 

available. Also, due to the lack of clearly defined key terms by 

Education and adequate time for verification of data by its contractor, 

the information Education collected and reported to the Congress under 

the accountability provisions provided an inaccurate picture of the 

quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of current 

teachers.



Furthermore, 45 of 59 eligible states have already been approved for or 

awarded state grants, and because the authorizing legislation 

specifically requires that these grants can only be awarded once, only 

14 states will be eligible to receive future state grants under the 

current authorizing legislation. Given this, and because the 

legislation requires that 45 percent of total grant funding be 

available for state grants, it is possible that some funding the 

Congress appropriates for teacher quality enhancement grants will 

remain unspent.



Recommendations:



In order to effectively manage the grant program, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Education further develop and maintain a system for 

regularly communicating program information, such as reporting 

deadlines and successful and unsuccessful practices.



To provide information about the effectiveness of grant activities, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Education establish a systematic 

approach for evaluating all grant activities, including providing 

guidance to grantees on the types of information needed to determine 

effectiveness.



To improve the information collected under the accountability 

provisions, we recommend that the Secretary of Education:



* define key terms from the legislation clearly and:



* allow sufficient time for verification of the required information.



Matter for Congressional Consideration:



If the Congress decides to continue funding teacher quality enhancement 

grants in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it 

might want to clarify whether all 59 states will 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. If the Congress decides to limit eligibility to states that have 

not previously received a state grant, it may want to consider changing 

the funding allocation for state grants.



Agency Comments:



In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of 

Education generally agreed with the findings presented in the report. 

Education did state, however, that we do not acknowledge the change of 

administration in 2001 and that our report should identify the changes 

being implemented by the current administration to address 

deficiencies. While our work covered questions and found problems with 

implementation under the current and prior administrations, a 

comparison of management under the two administrations is not within 

the scope of our work. However, grantees reported that communication 

continues to be a problem. For example, as we discuss in this report, 

at the beginning of the grant program grantees’ reported that they 

received regular communication from Education, but that this level of 

communication was not maintained due to Education’s management and 

staff turnover in recent years. Because Education’s new efforts to 

address deficiencies have just begun, it is too early to assess their 

impact on operations.



With respect to the accuracy of the Title II accountability report, 

Education noted one particular instance of state reporting error--

Maine’s teacher certification information. According to Education, the 

mistake was due to a third-party reporting error and not due to a lack 

of time for data verification. However, we report on more widespread 

problems of data reporting and verification. Among other things, we 

found that when we contacted eight states to check the accuracy of the 

Title II information, we found errors in the information for three of 

these states--Maine was not one of the states contacted during this 

review. Of the problems that we cited, additional time for data 

verification would be needed to improve the accuracy of the information 

reported to the Congress.



Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated when 

appropriate. Education’s comments appear in appendix V.



We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site 

at http://www.gao.gov. Please call me at (202) 512-8403 if you or your 

staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this 

report are listed in appendix VI.



Signed by Cornelia M. Ashby:



Cornelia M. Ashby

Director, Education, Workforce

 and Income Security Issues:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



To better understand whether the grants and reporting requirements are 

contributing to improving the quality of teaching in the classroom, we 

were asked to provide information on how the Higher Education Act has 

been implemented. Specifically, we provide information on the 

following: (1) how the Department of Education awarded grants and 

administered the grant program, (2) what activities grantees funded and 

what results can be associated with these activities, and (3) whether 

the information collected under the accountability provisions allows 

for an accurate report on the quality of teacher training programs and 

the qualifications of current teachers.



We conducted 33 site visits in 11 states, which accounted for almost 

50 percent of the total grant funding at the time of our review. We 

visited California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and 

Wisconsin. Grantees in these states were selected because they provide 

a range of grant activities and were geographically dispersed. At each 

grantee, we interviewed grant officials to obtain comprehensive and 

detailed information about how the grant program has been used to 

promote the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications 

of current teachers.



To learn about the implementation of these grants, we surveyed 91 

grantees, the total at the time of our review. The response rate for 

this survey was 87 percent. We also collected information on 

Education’s administration of the grants--specifically the monitoring, 

evaluation, and communication efforts--through our survey, site visits, 

and interviews with Education officials. We rounded out this 

information with interviews with experts on teaching and teacher 

training. The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may 

introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 

example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted or in 

the sources of information that are available to grantees can introduce 

unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the 

development of the questionnaires, the data collection, and the data 

editing and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, we 

pretested the questionnaire with a small number of grantees to refine 

the survey instrument, and we called individual grantees, if necessary, 

to clarify answers.



To determine if the information collected under the accountability 

provisions allows for an accurate report on the quality of teacher 

training programs and the qualifications of current teachers, we 

interviewed officials from institutions and states who had collected 

and reported information as a part of the accountability provisions. 

Our survey gathered information from institutions and states on the 

process of collecting and reporting accountability provisions 

information. We also reviewed reports and other research related to the 

accountability provisions. In addition, we interviewed teacher quality 

experts and Education officials responsible for all phases of the 

information collection, analysis, and reporting process.



[End of section]



We reviewed Title II of the Higher Education Act and analyzed guidance 

pertinent to the program. This review provided the foundation from 

which we analyzed the information collected. In conducting the data 

collection, we relied primarily on the opinions of the officials we 

interviewed and the data and supporting documents they provided. We 

also reviewed, for internal consistency, the data that officials 

provided us, and we sought clarification where needed. We conducted our 

work between December 2001 and November 2002 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Overview of Teacher Quality Grants under the Higher 

Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO’s analysis of Title II of the Higher Education Act and 

Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act.



[End of image]



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix III: Summary Information on Grant Activities:



Grant awarded to: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing; 

Amount funded: $10,588,598; Grant activities include: The California 

Commission on Teacher Credentialing is using some of its funds to help 

support the development of shorter teacher training programs. Some of 

the grant funds are also being used to develop new requirements for 

teacher training programs, providing them with assistance in making the 

transition, and providing professional development to new teachers.; 

Years funded: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Connecticut State Department of Education; Amount 

funded: $1,764,447; Grant activities include: The Connecticut State 

Department of Education is using its grant funds to reform the 

certification requirements for teachers statewide and develop alternate 

routes to certification for recruiting new people into the field of 

teaching. They are able to provide scholarships, stipends, and 

professional development to some participants.; Years funded: 1999-

2001.



Grant awarded to: Georgia Board of Regents; Amount funded: $9,949,480; 

Grant activities include: The Georgia Board of Regents grant funds 

provide universities and school districts with smaller subgrants. Among 

other things, some of these subgrantees are using their grants to 

attract academically talented high school students into teacher 

training programs. Also, some are designing programs to attract mid-

career professionals into the field of teaching by offering courses at 

convenient times and locations, and in some cases online. The grant is 

also being used to reform requirements and provide professional 

development for teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Illinois Board of Higher Education; Amount funded: 

$4,068,086; Grant activities include: The Illinois Board of Higher 

Education is using grant funds to develop preliminary requirements for 

a middle school teaching certificate and is partnering with four 

universities in the state that serve high-poverty students. The four 

partner universities are redesigning their coursework to recruit and 

better prepare teacher candidates for the middle grades.; Years funded: 

2000-2002.



Grant awarded to: Maryland State Department of Education; Amount 

funded: $5,632,049; Grant activities include: The Maryland State 

Department of Education is using most of its funds to provide subgrants 

to help teacher training programs implement new state requirements of 

providing professional development to teacher candidates.; Years 

funded: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Massachusetts Department of Education; Amount funded: 

$3,524,149; Grant activities include: The Massachusetts Department of 

Education is using its grant funds to create a database system that 

tracks teachers who are prepared, licensed, and employed in 

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Department of Education is also 

designing a mentor training program and reforming its requirements for 

teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; 

Amount funded: $8,379,462; Grant activities include: The North Carolina 

Department of Public Instruction is using its grant funds to implement 

a new teacher training program for mid-career professionals. The 

program begins with a full-time summer course, followed by seminars 

that are conducted during the following school year. The grant is also 

being used to develop new requirements and provide mentoring services 

for beginning teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education; Amount funded: $3,358,502; Grant activities include: The 

Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is using 

its grant funds to implement new requirements for teacher training 

programs and provide technical assistance to teacher training programs 

so that they will comply with the new state requirements. The funds are 

also being used to develop a mentor training program and a professional 

development demonstration site.; Years funded: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Tennessee Department of Education; Amount funded: 

$1,745,465; Grant activities include: The Tennessee Department of 

Education is using its funds to provide financial support to 

universities so they can improve their teacher training programs by 

partnering with a K-12 school. Grant funds are also helping to provide 

mentors to new teachers and develop a tool-kit for school 

administrators to learn how to provide professional development 

opportunities in schools. The grant is also supporting the development 

of a new alternate route to certification.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Texas State Board for Teacher Certification; Amount 

funded: $10,751,154; Grant activities include: The Texas State Board 

for Teacher Certification is using its grant funds to reform the 

requirements and design a program that provides systematic support for 

first and second year teachers. To do this, the board is developing an 

array of models for providing support to new teachers and has 

disseminated these models to the wider educational community. The board 

is also providing some of the state’s beginning teachers with support 

teams.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; Amount 

funded: $3,283,720; Grant activities include: The Wisconsin Department 

of Public Instruction is using its funds to develop new requirements 

for teacher training programs, an alternative certification model to 

recruit new teachers that meets the same requirements as traditional 

teacher training programs, and a statewide mentor-training model.; 

Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Partnership grants; Amount funded: [Empty]; Grant 

activities include: [Empty]; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: [Empty].



Amount funded: Grant awarded to Northern California Partnership Grant: 

$1,277,426.



Grant awarded to: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program 

(GSTEP); (University of Georgia); Amount funded: $6,492,635; Grant 

activities include: GSTEP is a partnership among three universities and 

11 school districts that aims to develop a six-year teacher training 

experience. The six-year experience would consist of four years of 

teacher training at a university program and two years of support and 

supervision by university faculty after they become teachers.; Years 

funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2004.



Grant awarded to: Illinois Teacher Education Partnership; (National 

Louis University); Amount funded: $6,308,245; Grant activities include: 

Illinois Teacher Education Partnership is a partnership of 10 school 

districts, six community colleges, and National Louis University to 

bring teacher-training programs to three underserved regions in 

Illinois. Classes are taught by National Louis faculty in local 

community colleges during evening and weekend hours to accommodate 

working students’ schedules. Illinois Teacher Education Partnership is 

also using funds to provide professional development for teachers.; 

Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2004.



Grant awarded to: Illinois Professional Learners’ Partnership; 

(Illinois State University); Amount funded: $12,611,607; Grant 

activities include: The Illinois Professional Learners Partnership 

consists of representatives from universities, community colleges, 

school districts, business partners, and other educational agencies. 

The partnership is focusing its efforts on improving the quantity and 

quality of beginning teachers in schools that had a teacher shortage by 

implementing various activities at each partner university, including 

re-designing the teacher training curriculum and providing support for 

new teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-

2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.



Grant awarded to: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher 

Quality; (Western Kentucky University); Amount funded: $5,711,847; 

Grant activities include: The Renaissance Partnership for Improving 

Teacher Quality is an initiative by 11 teacher training programs in 10 

states to improve the quality of their graduates and teachers in local 

partner schools by focusing attention on P-12 student learning. The 

partnership is focusing on seven activities, such as mentoring teacher 

candidates and requiring teacher candidates to provide work samples as 

evidence of their classroom abilities.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2003.



Grant awarded to: Project SITE SUPPORT; (The Johns Hopkins University); 

Amount funded: $12,660,901; Grant activities include: Project SITE 

SUPPORT is a partnership among several school districts and three 

universities that are working together to recruit, prepare, support, 

and retain new teachers to meet the diverse learning needs of K-12 

students in high-need urban schools.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2003.



Grant awarded to: Project Learning in Communities (LINC); (University 

System of Maryland); Amount funded: $4,187,912; Grant activities 

include: The Project LINC grant program is focusing its efforts in 

three areas: mentoring new teachers, partnering its teacher preparation 

program with local schools for professional development, and providing 

technology. This project is also funding some stipends and paid 

internships.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-

2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2004.



Grant awarded to: Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and 

Student Achievement; (Boston College); Amount funded: $7,168,926; Grant 

activities include: The Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and 

Student Achievement is partnering with seven universities and public 

schools in three cities around the state in an effort to provide 

teachers with the skills and knowledge they require in order to be 

successful educators in Massachusetts’ urban public schools. The 

Coalition is using its funds to reform requirements for teachers, 

provide professional development, and recruit for urban schools.; Years 

funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.



Grant awarded to: Teaching Matters, Quality Counts; (North Carolina 

Central University); Amount funded: $3,781,980; Grant activities 

include: The Teaching Matters, Quality Counts grant at North Carolina 

Central University is funding scholarships to talented high school and 

community college graduates who promise to teach in partner schools. 

The grant is also funding a mentoring program for new teachers.; Years 

funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.



Grant awarded to: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom 

Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT); (University of 

Tennessee-Chattanooga); Amount funded: $3,270,959; Grant activities 

include: Urban IMPACT is a partnership consisting of two universities 

and two school districts. The goal of Urban IMPACT is to increase the 

quantity and quality of urban teachers by providing professional 

development activities and redesigning the coursework at the teacher 

training programs to aid in the recruitment for urban schools. Urban 

IMPACT also provides new teachers with mentors and peer group meetings 

to help ensure they are receiving adequate support in their first three 

years of teaching.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.



Grant awarded to: Project Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology 

(CoMeT); (Our Lady of the Lake University); Amount funded: $5,604,478; 

Grant activities include: Project CoMeT is a partnership consisting of 

a 4-year university--Our Lady of the Lake University--two community 

colleges, several school districts, and one PK-12 school. The 

partnership is focusing on reforming the curriculum for teacher 

candidates at the University to recruit mid-career teacher candidates, 

providing competitive grants to schools and school districts so that 

they may have more funds for instructional materials, and mentoring new 

teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.



Grant awarded to: Institute for School-University Partnerships; (Texas 

A&M University); Amount funded: $11,623,979; Grant activities include: 

The grant at Texas A&M University provides funding for a partnership 

consisting of all nine A&M universities in Texas and 87 high-need 

schools that aim to increase the number of teachers prepared in the 

Texas A&M system. The grant provides funding for college scholarships 

to high school graduates committed to teaching as well as professional 

development and mentoring to new teachers. Some grant funds are also 

being used to reform the requirements for teachers graduating from the 

A&M system.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2003.



Grant awarded to: Partnership for Quality Education; (University of 

Houston); Amount funded: $3,945,239; Grant activities include: The 

Partnership for Quality Education is a partnership of four 

universities, six school districts, a community college, and a 

nonprofit agency. The goal of the grant is to prepare teachers for 

urban schools by redesigning the teacher training programs and 

providing professional development.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 2000-2004.



Grant awarded to: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Amount funded: 

$8,456,364; Grant activities include: The University of Wisconsin -

Milwaukee grant is focusing its efforts on creating new curriculum and 

recruiting individuals to teach in urban schools. This program is also 

funding a teacher leadership program for veteran teachers to assist and 

mentor new teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2004.



Grant awarded to: Recruitment grants; Grant awarded to: State Grants: 

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut State 

Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board of 

Higher Education: Maryland State Department of Education: Massachusetts 

Department of Education: North Carolina Department of Public 

Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for 

Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: 

Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia 

Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education 

Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ Partnership: Renaissance 

Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT: 

Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for 

Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality 

Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for 

the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and 

Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships: 

Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: 

[Empty]; Grant activities include: [Empty]; Years funded: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: [Empty].



Grant awarded to: Los Angeles Unified School District; Grant awarded 

to: State Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: 

Connecticut State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: 

Illinois Board of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of 

Education: Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina 

Department of Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary 

and Secondary Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State 

Board for Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public 

Instruction: Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership 

Grant: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois 

Teacher Education Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ 

Partnership: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: 

Project SITE SUPPORT: Project Learning in Communities (LINC): 

Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: 

Teaching Matters, Quality Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare 

Able Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project 

Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-

University Partnerships: Partnership for Quality Education: University 

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $956,261; Grant activities include: The Los 

Angeles Unified School District is using grant funds to target high 

school students interested in a teaching career by providing paid 

internships for high school students to assist current teachers in the 

classroom. The grant also funds the development of public service 

announcements to encourage people to become teachers.; Years funded: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Oakland Unified School District; Grant awarded to: 

State Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: 

Connecticut State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: 

Illinois Board of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of 

Education: Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina 

Department of Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary 

and Secondary Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State 

Board for Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public 

Instruction: Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership 

Grant: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois 

Teacher Education Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ 

Partnership: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: 

Project SITE SUPPORT: Project Learning in Communities (LINC): 

Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: 

Teaching Matters, Quality Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare 

Able Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project 

Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-

University Partnerships: Partnership for Quality Education: University 

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $1,026,168; Grant activities include: The 

Oakland Unified School District targets current teacher assistants 

providing tuition assistance to enable them to become certified 

teachers. The grant is also reforming the curriculum at a local 

university and is providing tutoring and preparation courses for state 

certification examinations to teacher candidates.; Years funded: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-

2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: San Diego State University Foundation; Grant awarded 

to: State Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: 

Connecticut State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: 

Illinois Board of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of 

Education: Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina 

Department of Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary 

and Secondary Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State 

Board for Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public 

Instruction: Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership 

Grant: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois 

Teacher Education Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ 

Partnership: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: 

Project SITE SUPPORT: Project Learning in Communities (LINC): 

Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: 

Teaching Matters, Quality Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare 

Able Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project 

Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-

University Partnerships: Partnership for Quality Education: University 

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $1,412,828; Grant activities include: The goal 

of the grant program at the San Diego State University Foundation is to 

recruit teachers for high-poverty schools. Grant activities include 

promoting early awareness of teaching as a career at the middle school 

and high school levels and providing scholarships and support to 

students at three community colleges and San Diego State University.; 

Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: University of California--Los Angeles; (University of 

California Regents Office); Grant awarded to: State Grants: California 

Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut State Department of 

Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board of Higher 

Education: Maryland State Department of Education: Massachusetts 

Department of Education: North Carolina Department of Public 

Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for 

Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: 

Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia 

Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education 

Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ Partnership: Renaissance 

Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT: 

Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for 

Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality 

Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for 

the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and 

Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships: 

Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: 

$1,213,295; Grant activities include: The majority of grant funds at 

the University of California-Los Angeles are being used for 

scholarships to first and second year students in their master-level 

teacher training program, as well as teacher candidates majoring in 

mathematics. The grant is also funding a program that encourages middle 

and high school students to become teachers.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Connecticut State Dept of Education; Grant awarded 

to: State Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: 

Connecticut State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: 

Illinois Board of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of 

Education: Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina 

Department of Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary 

and Secondary Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State 

Board for Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public 

Instruction: Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership 

Grant: The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois 

Teacher Education Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ 

Partnership: Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: 

Project SITE SUPPORT: Project Learning in Communities (LINC): 

Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: 

Teaching Matters, Quality Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare 

Able Classroom Teachers for the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project 

Collaboration, Mentoring and Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-

University Partnerships: Partnership for Quality Education: University 

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $938,428; Grant activities include: The focus 

of the Connecticut State Department of Education recruitment grant is 

the coordination of various statewide efforts to address the shortage 

of minority teachers in the state. Specifically, this grant is 

supporting efforts to recruit minority students from Connecticut middle 

and high schools to become teachers in subject areas identified as 

shortage areas in the state. Additionally, grant funds are being used 

for scholarships and workshops.; Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Teacher Recruitment Initiative in Tennessee (TRI-

IT!); (University of Tennessee-Chattanooga); Grant awarded to: State 

Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut 

State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board 

of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of Education: 

Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina Department of 

Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for 

Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: 

Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia 

Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education 

Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ Partnership: Renaissance 

Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT: 

Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for 

Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality 

Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for 

the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and 

Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships: 

Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: 

$1,193,297; Grant activities include: The TRI-IT! grant program is a 

partnership between two universities and two school districts. The 

program activities vary on the two university campuses, but include a 

recruitment strategy for increasing the number of teachers in 

mathematics, science, foreign languages, and special education. 

Scholarships are given to teacher candidates who are enrolled in the 

teacher training programs and are interested in teaching these 

subjects. The grant also funds professional development for teachers.; 

Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Teacher Recruitment and Induction Project (TRIP); 

(Southwest Texas State University); Grant awarded to: State Grants: 

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut State 

Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board of 

Higher Education: Maryland State Department of Education: Massachusetts 

Department of Education: North Carolina Department of Public 

Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for 

Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: 

Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia 

Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education 

Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ Partnership: Renaissance 

Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT: 

Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for 

Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality 

Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for 

the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and 

Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships: 

Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: 

$1,051,241; Grant activities include: TRIP is an accelerated teacher 

training program for mid-career professionals. The majority of grant 

funds pay for tuition assistance for the program, and the salaries for 

four full-time master teachers--who are on loan from the local school 

district--to serve as mentors. These mentors supervise the student-

teaching component of the program, as well as support new teachers.; 

Years funded: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Grant awarded to: Milwaukee Public Schools; Grant awarded to: State 

Grants: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Connecticut 

State Department of Education: Georgia Board of Regents: Illinois Board 

of Higher Education: Maryland State Department of Education: 

Massachusetts Department of Education: North Carolina Department of 

Public Instruction: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education: Tennessee Department of Education: Texas State Board for 

Teacher Certification: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: 

Partnership grants: Northern California Partnership Grant: The Georgia 

Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP): Illinois Teacher Education 

Partnership: Illinois Professional Learners’ Partnership: Renaissance 

Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality: Project SITE SUPPORT: 

Project Learning in Communities (LINC): Massachusetts Coalition for 

Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Teaching Matters, Quality 

Counts: Innovating to Motivate and Prepare Able Classroom Teachers for 

the Urban Setting (Urban IMPACT): Project Collaboration, Mentoring and 

Technology (CoMeT): Institute for School-University Partnerships: 

Partnership for Quality Education: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: 

$844,357; Grant activities include: The focus of the Milwaukee Public 

Schools grant is to reduce teacher shortages by recruiting mid-career 

professionals who already have a bachelor’s degree and are committed to 

working in an urban setting. In addition, the grant funds recruitment 

efforts by providing introductory education courses on high school 

campuses. University faculty teach these courses, and the high school 

students earn college credit if they pass the course.; Years funded: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 2000-2002: 1999-2001: 1999-2001: 

1999-2001: 1999-2001: 1999-2001.



Note: Shading is used to show how the grants differ.



Source: GAO’s analysis of grant activities from site visits and 

documents from the U.S. Department of Education.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Accountability Provision Description:



Title II, Section 207 of the Higher Education Act requires the annual 

preparation and submission of three reports on teacher preparation and 

qualifications: a report from institutions to states, a report from 

states to the Secretary of Education, and a report from the Secretary 

of Education to Congress and the public. The legislation also requires 

that the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics 

(Department of Education), in consultation with the states and 

institutions of higher education, develop definitions for key terms, 

and uniform reporting methods (including the definitions for the 

consistent reporting of pass rates), related to the performance of 

teacher preparation programs.



The reports mandated in the legislation are required of the following:



1. Institutions of higher education. Institutions that conduct teacher 

preparation programs enrolling students who receive federal assistance 

under the Title IV of HEA must submit timely and accurate reports or 

risk imposition of a fine up to $25,000.



2. States. States receiving HEA funds must submit the reports as a 

condition of receiving HEA funding.



3. The Secretary of Education. The Secretary of Education must compile 

the information into a national report.



[See PDF for image]



[End of table]



[A] Education guidance states that in order for data on an assessment 

to be reported, there must be at least 10 program completers taking 

that assessment in an academic year.



Source: GAO’s analysis of the Higher Education Act.



[End of figure]



[End of table]



The following are additional state functions required by the 

legislation:



* A state shall have in place a procedure to identify, and assist, 

through the provision of technical assistance, low-performing programs 

of teacher preparation within institutions of higher education. Such 

state shall provide the Secretary an annual list of such low-performing 

institutions that includes an identification of those institutions at 

risk of being placed on such list. Such levels of performance shall be 

determined solely by the state and may include criteria based upon 

information collected pursuant to this title.



* Any institution of higher education that offers a program of teacher 

preparation in which the state has withdrawn the state’s approval or 

terminated the state’s financial support due to the low performance of 

the institution’s teacher preparation program based upon the state 

assessment described shall be ineligible for any funding for 

professional development activities awarded by the Department of 

Education; and shall not be permitted to accept or enroll any student 

that receives aid under Title IV of this act in the institution’s 

teacher preparation program.



[End of section]



Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION:



THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:



Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby 

Director, Education, Welfare,

and Income Security Issues 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20548:



Dear Ms. Ashby:



Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft 

report, “Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, But Reporting 

on These Activities Could Be Enhanced.” Your report identifies a number 

of important mutual concerns regarding the teacher quality improvement 

programs authorized by Title 11 of the Higher Education Act (HEA) that 

should be considered by Congress during the next reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act.



The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 established an ambitious agenda 

for improving teacher quality. The Act authorized, and Congress 

subsequently provided, substantial sums for competitive grants to 

states and partnerships (between institutions of higher education and 

local school districts) to improve the quality of teacher preparation 

programs. It also required all institutions of higher education 

participating in the federal student financial assistance programs and 

states to provide information to the public and to the Department of 

Education on the quality of teacher preparation programs and teachers.



One major shortcoming of your report is that it does not acknowledge 

the change of Administration in 2001 and the increased emphasis on 

improving program management that has occurred under Secretary Paige. 

We believe that the report should clearly identify the policies and 

procedures followed in implementing the program by the previous 

Administration. We also believe that the report should identify the 

changes that are being implemented by the current Administration to 

address deficiencies.



The report found that the Department did not establish an effective 

system for communicating with Title II grantees. In particular, the 

report suggests that the Department has not had an effective system for 

communicating reporting deadlines and sharing information about 

successful --and unsuccessful --practices. Over the past year, we have 

improved communications with grantees and potential grant applicants, 

and increased our overall communication efforts. Direct contacts have 

been made with a number of states and more information is being put on 

the Department’s web site.



1990 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 Our mission is to ensure 

equal access to education and to promote educational excellence 

throughout the Nation.



You also found that the Department has not had a systematic approach to 

evaluate its Title II grant activities. We agree about the need for a 

systematic approach to evaluate Title II activities and that this need 

was neglected in the initial implementation of the program. Over the 

past year, we have been taking steps to strengthen evaluation of Title 

II and the other discretionary grant programs administered by the 

Office of Postsecondary Education. The Department expects that these 

efforts will strengthen weaker projects and identify especially 

effective ones.



Your report also says that the information collected by the Department 

under Title II does not permit us to accurately report on the quality 

of teacher preparation programs and the qualifications of current 

teachers in each state. Specifically, you identified as a significant 

problem that the terms used in data collection were too broadly 

defined. This allows institutions of higher education and states to 

interpret them as they wish. As a result, the information that 

institutions and states report is not uniform, making it difficult to 

assess accountability. In addition, your report states that the time 

spent verifying information from states and institutions was limited, 

resulting in the inclusion of inaccurate data in the Secretary’s Title 

II report to the Congress. Your recommendation is that the Department 

provide clear definitions of terms for collecting data and allow 

sufficient time to verify the data collected.



As required by Title II, the Department consulted with states, the 

higher education community, and other interested parties during the 

previous Administration to define these terms. The proposed definitions 

and reporting methods were reviewed by the public before the Office of 

Management and Budget approved the collection of the Title II data. 

After collecting data through two reporting cycles based on these 

definitions, the Department recognizes that the quality of the data 

collected must be improved. In addition to the three key terms 

identified in your report as needing better definitions-”graduate” of a 

teacher preparation program, “waiver” to standard initial teacher 

certification requirements, and “alternative route” to certification-

the Department believes that other parts of the data collection system 

should also be strengthened. The need for this change was recognized 

last April in objective 5.2 of the Department’s strategic plan for 

2002-2007, which set a goal to “Refine the Title II accountability 

system.”:



The Department is currently improving the Title II accountability 

system in two ways. First, we are aligning the HEA Title II data 

collection system with the requirements in Title II of the No Child 

Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This requires making the definition of waiver 

in the HEA Title II system complement the definition of highly 

qualified teacher in the Title II of NCLB. This alignment will reduce 

overall data burden on states in reporting data on teachers and their 

qualifications. Second, the Department is developing legislative 

proposals on the Title II accountability provisions for Congress to 

consider during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.



The Department believes that data accuracy is key to the successful 

implementation of the Title II accountability provisions. Thus, we 

regret that erroneous data on Maine’s teacher certification 

requirements were contained in the first annual Title 11 report on:



teacher quality, and we took responsibility for the error. However, it 

is important to note that the time to review those data was not a 

factor in causing this problem. The problem occurred because the actual 

source of the information was a document from an external agency that 

the Department relied upon in calculating the statistics required by 

the law. The Department also provided statgfficials with an opportunity 

to examine their Title 11 data before they were released. States are 

required to certify the accuracy of the Title Il information they 

submit to the Department, and we believe your report should note the 

centrality of the state role in ensuring the accuracy of the 

accountability data.



Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your draft report. 

We are also attaching a list a technical corrections for your 

consideration.



Sincerely,



Signed by Sally Stroup:



Sally Stroup:



Enclosure:



[End of section]



Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



Contacts:



Kelsey Bright, Assistant Director, (202) 512-9037

Sonya Harmeyer, Analyst-in-Charge, (202) 512-7128:



Acknowledgments:



In addition to those named above, the following individuals made 

important contributions to this report: Tamara Harris, Anjali 

Tekchandani, Corinna Nicolaou, Richard Burkard, Jonathan Barker, Paul 

Chapman, Jeff Edmondson, Stuart Kaufman, and Bonita Vines.



FOOTNOTES



[1] All 50 states, Washington D.C. and eight territories--the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States 

Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, 

and the Republic of Palau--are considered states for the purposes of 

HEA.



[2] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Teacher Training Programs: 

Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training, but Information 

Collected To Assess Accountability Has Limitations GAO-03-197T 

(Washington, D.C.: October 9, 2002).



[3] In addition to the site visits, we conducted a brief interview with 

the director of another grant, the Renaissance Partnership for 

Improving Teacher Quality, which consists of 

30 institutions of higher education located in 10 different states. 



[4] School district eligibility is limited to those with (1) a high 

percentage of students whose families fall below the poverty line and 

(2) a high percentage of secondary school teachers not teaching in the 

content area in which the teachers were trained to teach, or a high 

teacher turnover rate.



[5] U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education, 

Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Annual 

Report on Teacher Quality, June 2002.



[6] Pedagogy is defined as the study of teaching methods. Courses on 

pedagogy include training on how to best instruct students but may also 

include course work on classroom management skills--such as how to 

maintain order in the classroom.



[7] Most states require teachers to take multiple state certification 

examinations in order to become certified to teach in certain subject 

areas.



[8] Section 9101(23) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as 

amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110.



[9] Education funded a total of 45 state grants, 33 partnership grants, 

and 45 recruitment grants.



[10] Alabama State University was awarded a recruitment grant in 1999 

but refused funding after the first year, leaving a total of 122 

grants.



[11] Some entities could become eligible for another partnership or 

recruitment grant by changing the makeup of the partnering group. For 

example, a college that is part of a current partnership grant could 

partner with other entities to form a new partnership and become 

eligible for another partnership or recruitment grant.



[12] Wisconsin has 10 standards, such as demonstration of technological 

knowledge, that teachers must meet to be certified.



[13] The acronym SITE SUPPORT stands for “School Immersion Teacher 

Education and School University Partnership to Prepare Outstanding and 

Responsive Teachers.”



[14] The Los Angeles Unified School District operates on a year-round 

basis, with staggered vacation schedules for students. Internships 

occur during scheduled student vacations, allowing some students to 

participate as interns during their vacation in other schools that are 

in session. 



[15] Institutions are required to report to their states on the 

following: (1) pass rates, 

(2) program information--number of students in the program, average 

number of hours of supervised student teaching required for those in 

the program, and the faculty-student ratio in supervised practice 

teaching; and (3) a statement of whether the institution’s program is 

approved by the state.



[16] The Education Trust, Interpret With Caution: The First State Title 

II Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation, Washington, D.C.: 

June 2002.



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: