Policymakers and researchers have focused on improving the quality of our nation's 3 million teachers to raise the achievement of students in key academic areas, such as reading and mathematics. Given the importance of teacher quality to student achievement and the key role federal and state governments play in supporting teacher quality, GAO's objectives included examining (1) the extent that the U.S. Department of Education (Education) funds and coordinates teacher quality programs, (2) studies that Education conducts on teacher quality and how it provides and coordinates research-related assistance to states and school districts, and (3) challenges to collaboration within states and how Education helps address those challenges. GAO interviewed experts and Education officials, administered surveys to officials at state educational agencies and state agencies for higher education in the fall of 2008, and conducted site visits to three states.

Education allocates billions of federal dollars for teacher quality improvement efforts through many statutorily authorized programs that nine offices administer. Education officials said these offices share information with one another as needed, and from time to time Education has established and completed broader collaborative efforts. Yet, GAO found little sustained coordination and no strategy for working systematically across program lines. Education also has not described how it will coordinate crosscutting teacher quality improvement activities intended to support its goal of improving student achievement in its annual performance plan. Our previous work has identified the use of strategic and annual plans as a practice that can help enhance and sustain collaboration. Without clear strategies for sustained coordination, Education may be missing key opportunities to leverage and align its resources, activities, and processes to assist states, school districts, and institutions of higher education improve teacher quality. Education has conducted evaluations for some of its teacher quality programs and has awarded grants to researchers for a variety of research on teacher quality interventions, which are intended to inform policymakers and educators about program operations and which programs or interventions are having an impact. While evaluations have been done or are under way for about two-fifths of these programs, little is known about whether most of the programs are achieving their desired results. Education provides information from evaluations and also from research through the Internet and a system of regional and national providers. These providers also either conduct or synthesize research and provide assistance mainly to states and school districts. These providers coordinate among themselves and with one another in various ways. State agency officials reported through our surveys that limited resources and incompatible data systems were the greatest challenges to their collaborative efforts to improve teacher quality. State officials reported that data systems could be used to inform teacher quality policy efforts by linking student and teacher data, or linking data from kindergarten through 12th grade and the postsecondary education systems. To help address these challenges, Education provides some financial support and other assistance. For example, one $65 million program that helps states develop statewide data systems also received another $250 million in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Also, the act requires states to report on the progress they are making toward linking statewide data systems that allow matching of individual student achievement to individual teachers. This additional funding could help states defray costs associated with these efforts.

Status Legend:

Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

• In Process
• Open
• Closed - implemented
• Closed - not implemented

Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: To ensure that departmental goals to improve teacher quality are achieved and that the department's many related efforts are mutually reinforcing, the Secretary of Education should establish and implement a strategy for sustained coordination among existing departmental offices and programs. A key purpose of this coordination would be to facilitate information and resource sharing as well as strengthening linkages among teacher quality improvement efforts to help states, school districts, and institutions of higher education in their initiatives to improve teacher quality.

Agency Affected: Department of Education

Status: Open

Comments: The Department agrees that coordination is beneficial and will explore the benefits of creating such a mechanism. The Department has brought together individuals from different offices to work together effectively on discrete issues or problems related to teacher quality when such action is needed. Good examples are the coordination that occurred on the implementation of the highly qualified teacher requirements of the ESEA, as amended, and on the development of common performance measures for teacher professional development programs. In recent months, the Department has taken additional actions to coordinate in response to new demands and needs. The Department has initiated a number of coordination efforts to address the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requirements, including a working group to coordinate teacher and principal workforce initiatives under ARRA. The Department has also created a Human Capital Team led by the Secretary's advisors on teacher and principal issues and made up of representatives from several program offices. The Human Capital Team will seek to create consistent policy relating to the effectiveness and equitable distribution of teachers and principals and will work to address policy issues at a strategic level. It will provide a structure that will enable more effective collaboration across the Department. In addition, the Department is developing a strategic plan that will include specific goals and strategies for improving the recruitment, preparation, training, rewarding, and retaining of teachers. When completed, the strategic plan's goals and strategies regarding teachers will guide future coordination across program offices and create consistent expectations regarding the effectiveness of teachers and principals. It will also inform the Administration's proposal for the reauthorization of the ESEA of 1965. Efforts to coordinate program implementation cannot, however, fully eliminate challenges to program alignment. Individual programs have unique, and often inconsistent, legislative definitions and requirements. While increased internal coordination may alleviate some problems, it is unlikely to completely resolve them. The report identifies a cogent example: on page 19, the authors note that the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program has a statutory definition of "high-need local educational agency," while the Mathematics and Science Partnerships program does not have a statutory definition of that term. The authors suggest that this inconsistency may hinder States' ability to coordinate their implementation of the two programs. However, intra-agency coordination could not eliminate this inconsistency, nor would it necessarily always be desirable to do so. The agency did not provide an update in FY11.