GAO-09-573, Teacher Preparation: Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide Coordination Could Enhance This Assistance


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-573 
entitled 'Teacher Preparation: Multiple Federal Education Offices 
Support Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities 
and English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide 
Coordination Could Enhance This Assistance' which was released on 
August 19, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
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. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong 
Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House 
of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

July 2009: 

Teacher Preparation: 

Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher Preparation for 
Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, 
but Systematic Departmentwide Coordination Could Enhance This 
Assistance: 

GAO-09-573: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-573, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on 
Education and Labor, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2005-2006, students with disabilities comprised 9 percent of the 
student population in the United States, and English language learners 
comprised about 10 percent. Many of these students spend a majority of 
their time in the general classroom setting in elementary and secondary 
schools. Most teachers are initially trained through teacher 
preparation programs at institutions of higher education. GAO was asked 
to examine (1) the extent to which teacher preparation programs require 
preparation for general classroom teachers to instruct these student 
subgroups; (2) the role selected states play in preparing general 
classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups; and (3) funding 
and other assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Education 
(Education) to help general classroom teachers instruct these student 
subgroups. To address these issues, GAO conducted a nationally 
representative survey of teacher preparation programs and interviewed 
officials from state and local educational agencies in four states and 
Education. 

What GAO Found: 

According to GAO’s survey results, most traditional teacher preparation 
programs at institutions of higher education nationwide required at 
least some training for prospective general classroom teachers on 
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners. 
While the majority of programs required at least one course entirely 
focused on students with disabilities, no more than 20 percent of 
programs required at least one course entirely focused on English 
language learners. Additionally, more than half the programs required 
field experiences with students with disabilities, while less than a 
third did so for English language learners. Despite recent steps by the 
majority of programs to better prepare teachers for instructing both of 
these student subgroups, many programs faced challenges in providing 
this training. 

The four states GAO visited—California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas—
set varying requirements for teacher preparation programs. However, all 
of the states and school districts visited provided assistance to 
general classroom teachers to help them instruct these student 
subgroups. Nevertheless, these states and school districts cited 
challenges providing this training, such as time constraints and 
identifying appropriate instructional strategies. 

Six Education offices provide funding and other assistance that can 
help general classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and 
English language learners, but no departmentwide mechanism exists to 
coordinate among the offices. Ten grant programs allow grantees to use 
funds to help general classroom teachers instruct these students; 
Education offices also support research and technical assistance 
providers that serve policymakers and educators. However, Education 
lacks a mechanism to facilitate information sharing among the offices 
on a regular basis that could assist offices that have less experience 
with these subgroups to better understand student needs or integrate 
research findings into ongoing programming. 

Figure: Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Research and Technical 
Assistance Providers: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

U.S. Department of Education: 

IES: Institute of Education Sciences; 
* Regional research and technical assistance providers; 
* National research and technical assistance providers (3). 

OII: Office of Innovation and Improvement; 
* Grant programs. 

OPEPD: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; 
* National research and technical assistance providers. 

OSERS: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; 
* Grant programs; 
* Regional research and technical assistance providers; 
* National research and technical assistance providers. 

OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; 
* Grant programs; 
* Regional research and technical assistance providers (2); 
* National research and technical assistance providers. 

OELA: Office of English Language Acquisition; 
* Grant programs; 
* National research and technical assistance providers. 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documents and interviews with 
officials, Art Explosion (images). 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education develop and implement a 
mechanism to ensure more systematic coordination among program offices 
that oversee assistance that can help general classroom teachers to 
instruct these student subgroups. Education agreed that coordination is 
beneficial and will explore the benefits of creating such a mechanism. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-573] or key 
components. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-
7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Most Traditional Teacher Preparation Programs Required at Least Some 
Training on Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language 
Learners and Cited Challenges Preparing Teachers for Both Subgroups: 

The States We Visited Set Varying Requirements for the Preparation of 
Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English Language 
Learners, though All Offered Ongoing Training to Teachers and 
Experienced Challenges Meeting Training Needs: 

Multiple Education Offices Provide Assistance to Help Teachers Instruct 
Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, but No 
Systematic Coordination Exists among These Offices: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Survey of Teacher Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher 
Education: 

Site Visits to Selected States and School Districts: 

Analysis of Education's Survey Data: 

Review of Education-Funded Grant Programs, Research, and Technical 
Assistance: 

Appendix II: Education-Funded Regional Research and Technical 
Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed: 

Appendix III: Education-Funded National Research and Technical 
Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Education Offices That Oversee Funding or Assistance That Can 
Support Prospective and Practicing Teachers in Instructing Students 
with Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

Table 2: Ten Federal Programs Provide Funding That Can Be Used to 
Prepare General Classroom Teachers to Work with Students with 
Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

Table 3: Funding Required or Allowed to Prepare or Train Prospective or 
Practicing Teachers: 

Table 4: Characteristics of Teacher Preparation Programs at 
Institutions of Higher Education That Responded to GAO's Survey: 

Table 5: School Districts GAO Visited in Four Selected States: 

Table 6: Selected Regional-Level Research and Technical Assistance 
Providers: 

Table 7: Selected National-Level Research and Technical Assistance 
Providers: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Percentage Change in Population Ages 5 to 17 Years That 
Speaks English "Less Than Very Well," from 1990 to 2000: 

Figure 2: Career Path for Teachers: 

Figure 3: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Reported 
Requiring Courses, with Varying Levels of Content, on Students with 
Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

Figure 4: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required at 
Least One Course Entirely Focused on Students with Disabilities and 
English Language Learners: 

Figure 5: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective 
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs on 
Instructing Students with Disabilities: 

Figure 6: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective 
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs on 
Instructing English Language Learners: 

Figure 7: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required 
Field Experiences with Students with Disabilities and English Language 
Learners: 

Figure 8: Types of Field Experiences Required by Traditional Teacher 
Preparation Programs for Prospective Teachers on Instructing Students 
with Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

Figure 9: Program Improvements Recently Completed by Teacher 
Preparation Programs to Better Prepare Prospective Teachers for 
Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

Figure 10: Reasons Reported by Teacher Preparation Programs That 
Prompted Program Improvements to Better Prepare Prospective Teachers 
for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language 
Learners: 

Figure 11: Challenges Faced by Teacher Preparation Programs in 
Preparing Prospective Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities 
and English Language Learners: 

Figure 12: Types of Information or Assistance Reported by Teacher 
Preparation Programs That Could Greatly Benefit Their Efforts to 
Prepare Teachers to Work with Students with Disabilities and English 
Language Learners: 

Figure 13: Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Regional and 
National Research and Technical Assistance Providers That Can Support 
Teacher Preparation to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English 
Language Learners: 

Abbreviations: 

ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act: 

ESL: English as a second language: 

HEA: Higher Education Act: 

HEOA: Higher Education Opportunity Act: 

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 

IEP: individualized education program: 

IES: Institute of Education Sciences: 

NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: 

NLS-NCLB: National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind: 

OELA: Office of English Language Acquisition: 

OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education: 

OII: Office of Innovation and Improvement: 

OPE: Office of Postsecondary Education: 

OSERS: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: 

OPEPD: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development: 

SSI-NCLB: State Survey on the Implementation of No Child Left Behind: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 20, 2009: 

The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and 
Competitiveness: 
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Today's general classroom teachers face increasing student diversity in 
their classrooms, including growing numbers of students with 
disabilities and English language learners.[Footnote 1] Out of the 49 
million students enrolled in U.S. public schools in school year 2005- 
2006, students identified with disabilities and eligible for special 
education services under federal legislation comprised 9 percent of 
public school enrollment, and English language learners comprised 
approximately 10 percent of the student population. Enrollment for both 
of these student subgroups has been increasing in past years, and many 
of these students spend a majority of their time in the general 
classroom setting. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
(ESEA), amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 
2001 (NCLBA), holds states, school districts, and individual schools 
accountable for the achievement of all students, including students in 
these two subgroups. However, schools have reported difficulty making 
adequate yearly progress for students with disabilities and English 
language learners.[Footnote 2] At the same time, a 2008 study funded by 
the U.S. Department of Education (Education) found that less than half 
of the general classroom teachers surveyed nationwide who received 
preparation to instruct students with special needs and ethnically 
diverse students said the training they received prepared them well for 
the diversity they encountered in the classroom.[Footnote 3] 

Most prospective teachers are trained through teacher preparation 
programs at institutions of higher education, and each state prescribes 
standards for these programs within its own state. In addition, state 
and local governments have traditionally had the primary responsibility 
for overseeing teacher quality, but the federal government has been 
redefining its role in this area. At the federal level, Education 
provides financial assistance to states, institutions of higher 
education, and school districts to support teacher quality, including 
teacher preparation and ongoing training for practicing teachers. The 
ESEA, Higher Education Act (HEA),[Footnote 4] and the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are the key federal laws that 
authorize funding to support general classroom teachers to instruct 
these two student subgroups through various formula and competitive 
grant programs overseen by Education. Education also funds a number of 
national and regional research and technical assistance providers that 
can provide support to teachers who instruct these two student 
subgroups. 

As agreed with your office, we examined (1) the extent to which teacher 
preparation programs require preparation for general classroom teachers 
to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners 
and the challenges these programs face; (2) the role selected states 
play in preparing general classroom teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities and English language learners and their challenges; and 
(3) the funding and other assistance provided by Education to states 
and teacher preparation programs to help prepare general classroom 
teachers to instruct these student subgroups. 

We used several methodologies to answer these questions. To determine 
the extent to which teacher preparation programs at institutions of 
higher education require that general classroom teachers receive 
preparation to work with students with disabilities and English 
language learners, we conducted a nationally representative survey of 
374 programs randomly selected from the 50 states and the District of 
Columbia to create estimates about the population of all teacher 
preparation programs. We had a response rate of 81 percent, and all 
estimates from our survey have a margin of error of plus or minus 6 
percentage points, unless otherwise noted, at the 95 percent confidence 
level. To understand the role of selected states in preparing both 
prospective and practicing teachers to work with these student 
subgroups, we interviewed officials at state agencies and local school 
districts, as well as teachers, in four states--California, Georgia, 
Nebraska, and Texas. We selected states that met a range of conditions, 
primarily focusing on states either with a high percentage of the 
population ages 5 to 21 who speak English "less than very well" or 
experiencing population growth in this student subgroup, as well as 
geographic diversity. We also took into consideration states with 
higher-than-average percentages of students with disabilities served 
under IDEA, Part B, who spent more than 80 percent of their day in a 
general education classroom.[Footnote 5] To review Education's funding 
and other assistance, we compiled a list, verified by Education 
officials, of major relevant federal grant programs from the 2008 Guide 
to U.S. Department of Education Programs. For each program, we reviewed 
what was known about how much of the funding was used in the 2007-2008 
school year to prepare general classroom teachers, statutory 
requirements, and performance goals. We also interviewed officials from 
Education-supported national research and technical assistance 
providers with a major focus on students with disabilities, English 
language learners, or teacher preparation. Finally, we selected 
regional providers of research and technical assistance for interviews 
that served our four selected states. A more detailed explanation of 
our methodology can be found in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2008 to July 2009 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Educating Students with Disabilities: 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the 
percentage of children and youth with disabilities who receive special 
education services under IDEA in public schools increased over 5 
percent from 1976 to 2007.[Footnote 6] In fall 2007, 6 million students 
with disabilities received services under IDEA,[Footnote 7] and 
comprised about 9 percent of the student population,[Footnote 8] 
according to the Data Accountability Center.[Footnote 9] States have 
relatively similar proportions of students with disabilities served 
under IDEA, which can include students with learning disabilities, 
speech or language impairments, emotional disturbance, and autism, 
among other disabilities. IDEA was most recently reauthorized in 2004, 
and is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs of 
students with disabilities.[Footnote 10] This law mandates a free 
appropriate public education for all eligible children with 
disabilities, an individualized education program (IEP) for each 
student, and placement of these students in the least restrictive 
environment, among other provisions.[Footnote 11] Under the least 
restrictive environment requirement, state and local educational 
agencies must ensure that children with disabilities are educated with 
children who are nondisabled to the maximum extent appropriate. 

As a result of these provisions, many students with disabilities served 
under IDEA spend part of their day in a general education classroom. 
According to Education data for fall 2007, nearly 57 percent of 
students with disabilities served under IDEA from the ages of 6 through 
21 spent more than 80 percent of their school day in the general 
classroom setting.[Footnote 12] Specific instructional models vary by 
states and school districts for students with disabilities. For 
example, in a full-inclusion model, or "pull-in" model, a student 
spends the majority of time in a general education classroom, and 
services are brought to the student, either by a special education co- 
teacher or a consultant. In a partial-inclusion model, or "pull-out" 
model, a student will spend part of the day in a resource classroom 
where the student receives more intensive or individualized instruction 
provided by a special education teacher. Increasingly, states and 
school districts are implementing a new model for the general education 
classroom, called Response to Intervention, aimed to help teachers 
determine and provide for the appropriate education interventions so 
that children can progress in their learning. Through this model, 
general classroom teachers, as part of a multidisciplinary team effort, 
can help to identify struggling students and monitor their progress, 
provide and adjust evidence-based academic interventions depending on a 
student's responsiveness, and identify students with learning 
disabilities. 

Educating English Language Learners: 

A 2008 Education report found that while the overall school population 
grew by less than 3 percent from 1996 to 2006, the English language 
learner student population increased more than 60 percent and is among 
the fastest growing demographic groups of students in the country. 
[Footnote 13] The number and percentage of English language learners 
vary widely among states. For example, based on state-reported data to 
Education, five states--California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and 
Texas--were home to nearly 60 percent of students identified as English 
language learners in grades kindergarten to 12 in the 2005-2006 school 
year.[Footnote 14] However, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 
1990 to 2000, the fastest growing English language learner student 
populations were concentrated in other states in the Southeast, 
Midwest, and mountain areas of the West (see figure 1). In addition, 
English language learners include foreign-born and native-born 
students, with several recent reports estimating that native-born 
students make up at least half of these students in the United States. 
English language learners have diverse cultural backgrounds and speak 
more than 400 languages, with almost 80 percent of these students 
speaking Spanish, according to Education. These students also include 
refugees with little formal schooling and students who are literate in 
their native languages, resulting in a range of educational needs. 

Figure 1: Percentage Change in Population Ages 5 to 17 Years That 
Speaks English "Less Than Very Well," from 1990 to 2000: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of the U.S.] 

Percentage Change in Population Ages 5 to 17 Years That Speaks English 
"Less Than Very Well," from 1990 to 2000: 

-11.5% to 0%: 
Iowa; 
Louisiana; 
Maine; 
West Virginia. 

1 to 75%: 
Alabama; 
Alaska; 
California; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
District of Columbia; 
Florida; 
Hawaii; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Kentucky; 
Maryland; 
Massachusetts; 
Michigan; 
Mississippi; 
Missouri; 
Montana; 
New Hampshire; 
New Jersey; 
New Mexico; 
New York; 
North Dakota; 
Ohio; 
Pennsylvania; 
Rhode Island; 
Texas; 
Wyoming. 

76% to 150%: 
Arizona; 
Idaho; 
Oklahoma; 
South Carolina; 
Tennessee; 
South Carolina; 
South Dakota; 
Utah; 
Vermont; 
Virginia; 
Washington; 
Wisconsin. 

151% to 284%: 
Arkansas; 
Colorado; 
Georgia; 
Kansas; 
Minnesota; 
Nebraska; 
Nevada; 
North Carolina; 
Oregon. 

Sources: GAO analysis of data from the 1990 Census and 2000 Census, 
U.S. Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Generally, individual school districts determine the type of 
instruction program that will best serve their English language 
learners, and, according to Education, all states have outlined 
statewide standards for English language proficiency for English 
language learner students. Some of these instruction programs develop 
literacy in two languages, such as two-way immersion, or dual language 
programs, which aim to develop strong skills and proficiency in both 
the student's native language and English. Other programs aim to 
develop literacy in English only, such as structured English immersion 
programs, for which all instruction is in English and adjusted to the 
proficiency level of students, so that subject matter is 
understandable. 

Career Path for Teachers: 

Preparation for general classroom teachers involves formal training for 
initial certification, often referred to as preservice training, as 
well as ongoing training throughout a teacher's professional career, 
often referred to as in-service training or professional development. 
Multiple pathways exist for teachers to obtain their initial 
certification to teach. Most teachers receive undergraduate degrees 
through teacher preparation programs administered by institutions of 
higher education. These traditional programs typically include courses 
in subject matter and instructional strategies, as well as field-based 
experiences. Under this traditional approach, prospective teachers must 
complete all of their certification requirements before beginning to 
teach. In contrast, alternative routes to certification, designed for 
prospective teachers who already have an undergraduate degree or 
perhaps an existing career in a different field, tend to focus mainly 
on instructional approaches, since these prospective teachers generally 
have subject matter expertise. Prospective teachers in alternative 
routes to certification typically begin teaching while continuing to 
take coursework needed to meet certification or licensure requirements. 
According to state-reported data submitted to Education, nearly 20 
percent of the teachers prepared in 2003-2004 earned their teaching 
certificate through an alternative route to certification.[Footnote 15] 
About half of alternative programs are administered by institutions of 
higher education. The remainder are offered through school districts, 
statewide regional educational service centers,[Footnote 16] state 
departments of education, and other entities. 

Training for practicing teachers already in the classroom continues 
beyond completion of a teacher preparation program with training 
offered by states; school districts; and other entities, including 
institutions of higher education. Some states and school districts may 
offer induction or mentoring programs for new teachers, which could 
include assistance from a more experienced teacher, additional 
training, or classroom observation. Teachers can also earn supplemental 
certificates, such as an English as a second language (ESL) 
endorsement, and school districts may encourage or require teachers to 
receive additional training to earn these certifications. See figure 2 
for an illustration of the various steps in the career path for 
teachers. 

Figure 2: Career Path for Teachers: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

(1) Preparation of prospective teachers (preservice): 
* Recruiting prospective teachers into the field; 
* Traditional or alternative programs: 
– Training in pedagogy; 
– Acquisition of subject matter knowledge; 
– Field experiences, including student teaching; 
Service providers: Institutions of higher education and/or alternative 
route programs. 

(2) Certification and continuing training for new practicing teachers: 
* Initial license or professional license; 
* Mentoring or induction program during first years of teaching; 
Service providers: States, districts, and institutions of higher 
education. 

(3) Ongoing professional training for practicing teachers (in-service): 
* Professional development courses; 
* Advanced certification; 
* License renewal; 
Service providers: States, districts, institutions of higher education, 
and other providers. 

Source: GAO analysis, Art Explosion (images). 

[End of figure] 

State and Federal Support for Teacher Preparation: 

State educational agencies, local school districts, and the federal 
government support the preparation and ongoing training of general 
classroom teachers. Each state sets its own standards for teacher 
preparation programs and requirements for teacher certification. As a 
result of state-specific standards for teacher preparation programs and 
teacher certification, teachers prepared in one state may not meet the 
qualifications in another state. Nationwide, most teachers become 
certified to teach within the same state where they completed their 
preparation, but some states have higher percentages of teachers 
trained outside of the state. According to state-reported data 
submitted to Education, in 2003-2004, seven states reported that more 
than 40 percent of their newly certified teachers received their 
initial preparation outside the state they were working in.[Footnote 
17] Some states prescribe ongoing professional development standards 
that teachers must meet in order to maintain their certification and 
are also responsible for monitoring and assisting their school 
districts. 

In line with Education's strategic goal outlined in its fiscal year 
2009 Performance Plan to improve student achievement with a focus on 
bringing all students to grade level by 2014, as required by ESEA, and 
to ensure that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers, 
Education provides financial support and other assistance to state and 
local educational agencies that can be used to help general classroom 
teachers instruct these two student subgroups. Financial support is 
provided through a number of formula and competitive grants.[Footnote 
18] These grant programs provide billions of dollars to state 
educational agencies, school districts, and institutions of higher 
education, as well as other entities, and are administered by different 
Education offices. Other federal assistance includes research and 
technical assistance directly from Education offices or indirectly via 
about 100 regional and national technical assistance providers 
supported by the agency. Six offices within Education oversee funding, 
research, and technical assistance that provide support to varying 
degrees related to preparing general classroom teachers to instruct 
students with disabilities and English language learners (see table 1). 

Table 1: Education Offices That Oversee Funding or Assistance That Can 
Support Prospective and Practicing Teachers in Instructing Students 
with Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

Education office: Institute of Education Sciences (IES); 
Purpose: Provides rigorous research on which to ground education 
practice and policy. 

Education office: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE); 
Purpose: Promotes academic excellence, enhances educational 
opportunities and equity for all of America's children and families, 
and improves the quality of teaching and learning by providing 
leadership, technical assistance, and financial support. 

Education office: Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA); 
Purpose: Provides national leadership to help ensure that English 
language learners and immigrant students attain English proficiency and 
achieve academically and assists in building the nation's capacity in 
critical foreign languages. 

Education office: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 
(OPEPD); 
Purpose: Oversees planning, evaluation, policy development, and budget 
activities within Education. 

Education office: Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII); 
Purpose: Makes strategic investments in innovative educational 
practices through two dozen discretionary grant programs and 
coordinates the public school choice and supplemental educational 
services provisions of ESEA, as amended by NCLBA. 

Education office: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services (OSERS); 
Purpose: Works to improve results and outcomes for people with 
disabilities of all ages; in supporting ESEA, as amended by NCLBA, 
OSERS provides a wide array of supports to parents and individuals, 
school districts, and states in three main areas: special education, 
vocational rehabilitation, and research. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education documentation. 

[End of table] 

ESEA, IDEA, and HEA are the three major laws that influence the 
preparation of teachers to work with students with disabilities and 
English language learners in general education classrooms. 

* ESEA, which was amended and reauthorized in 2001 by NCLBA, is 
designed to improve the education of all students and holds school 
districts accountable for student achievement. ESEA provides that 
students with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency 
are among four specific student subgroups for which achievement must be 
monitored.[Footnote 19] States must set annual goals that lead to all 
students achieving proficiency in reading, mathematics, and science by 
2014. To meet adequate yearly progress for a given year, each district 
and school must show that the requisite percentage of each designated 
student group, as well as the student population as a whole, met the 
state proficiency goals on an annual assessment.[Footnote 20] In 
addition, states must annually assess the English language proficiency 
of all students with limited English proficiency. ESEA authorizes 
funding to improve outcomes through preparing teachers to instruct 
students with disabilities and English language learners, most notably 
through Titles I, II, and III. Title I, Part A of ESEA provides 
financial assistance to local educational agencies and schools with 
high numbers or high percentages of economically disadvantaged 
children. Title II, Part A aims to improve teacher and principal 
quality. Title III of ESEA focuses on assisting school districts in 
achieving student progress in English proficiency. In addition, ESEA 
defines highly qualified teachers as those that have (1) a bachelor's 
degree, (2) full state certification or licensure, and (3) demonstrate 
proficiency in the subjects they teach. However, while there are 
specific requirements for special education teachers, ESEA does not 
identify specific requirements for general classroom teachers to prove 
their skills in teaching students with disabilities or English language 
learners. 

* IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs 
of students with disabilities.[Footnote 21] IDEA provides formula grant 
funding to states and school districts under Part B for students with 
disabilities from the ages of 3 through 21 years. IDEA also provides 
competitive grant funds to states, institutions of higher education, 
and other entities under Part D to support personnel development and 
technical assistance and information dissemination efforts. 

* HEA authorizes competitive grants to enhance the quality of teacher 
training programs and the qualification of practicing teachers, as well 
as accountability requirements for teacher preparation programs and 
states.[Footnote 22] Although Congress has held states and teacher 
preparation programs accountable for the federal funds they received 
under HEA, the reauthorization of that act by the Higher Education 
Opportunity Act (HEOA) amended HEA to require annual reporting on the 
preparation of general classroom teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities and English language learners.[Footnote 23] 

In addition, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 is intended to 
strengthen the principal education research, statistics, and evaluation 
activities of Education.[Footnote 24] This act established the 
Institute of Education Sciences (IES). 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), 
signed into law on February 17, 2009, provides Education with an 
additional $97 billion.[Footnote 25] Of this amount, more than $21 
billion will provide funding for three existing grant programs 
authorized by ESEA, HEA, and IDEA that either require or allow funds to 
be used to prepare general classroom teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities and English language learners. The $97 billion for 
Education also includes $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal 
Stabilization Fund. Local educational agencies that receive Fiscal 
Stabilization funds may use them for fiscal years 2009 to 2011 for any 
activity authorized by ESEA and IDEA, which would include supporting 
programs designed to address the educational needs of students with 
disabilities and English language learners as an eligible use of funds. 
In an April 2009 report on our initial review of state usage of funds 
available through this act, we noted that only three states have had 
their proposals describing how they would use the funds designated for 
educational purposes approved by Education.[Footnote 26] 

Most Traditional Teacher Preparation Programs Required at Least Some 
Training on Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language 
Learners and Cited Challenges Preparing Teachers for Both Subgroups: 

According to our survey, which we administered during fall 2008, most 
traditional teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher 
education nationwide required at least one course for prospective 
general classroom teachers that included content on instructing 
students with disabilities and English language learners, although the 
level of emphasis on these student subgroups in required coursework 
varied greatly.[Footnote 27] In addition, fewer programs required field 
experiences with these students, especially English language learners. 
The majority of programs recently took steps to improve prospective 
teachers' training on instructing these subgroups but cited ongoing 
challenges to provide this training. Overall, about half of these 
programs felt that they could benefit from additional assistance. 

While Most Programs Required Courses That Include Content on These 
Subgroups, Course Emphasis Varied, As Well As Requirements for Field 
Experiences: 

On the basis of responses from the random sample of teacher preparation 
programs at the institutions of higher education we surveyed, we 
estimate that most traditional teacher preparation programs nationwide 
require courses, with varying levels of emphasis, on students with 
disabilities and English language learners. As shown in figure 3, about 
95 percent of these programs required courses that include at least 
some content on instructing students with disabilities, and about 73 
percent of programs required courses that include at least some content 
on English language learners. The major reason cited by programs for 
not requiring courses with content on English language learners or 
field experiences with this student subgroup was that their state 
standards did not require this of teacher preparation programs. For 
example, state standards for teacher preparation programs vary in their 
requirements regarding course content and field experiences and can 
include limitations on the maximum number of program or credit hours. 
In addition, states vary in whether they have the same or different 
standards for traditional and alternative routes to certification 
programs. We estimate that about half of the institutions of higher 
education offered alternative routes to certification. Of those 
institutions of higher education that offer both traditional and 
alternative programs, the percentage of alternative routes with 
required courses that include content on these student subgroups was 
similar to traditional teacher preparation programs. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Reported 
Requiring Courses, with Varying Levels of Content, on Students with 
Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image; multiple vertical bar graph] 

Programs: Elementary Programs; 
Students with disabilities: 95%; 
English language learners: 72%. 

Programs: Secondary Programs; 
Students with disabilities: 94%; 
English language learners: 73%. 

Programs: Alternative routes[A]; 
Students with disabilities: 89%. 
English language learners: 60%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

Notes: Data on elementary and secondary programs refer to traditional 
teacher preparation programs. Data on alternative routes to 
certification include programs that prepare both elementary and 
secondary general classroom teachers. 

[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. 

[End of figure] 

While the majority (67 to 73 percent) of traditional teacher 
preparation programs had at least one course entirely focused on 
students with disabilities, no more than 20 percent of programs 
required at least one course entirely focused on English language 
learners (see figure 4). English language learners were more often a 
partial focus of required courses for prospective elementary and 
secondary teachers. For example, programs were more likely to 
incorporate content on instructing these students as part of required 
courses entirely focused on diverse learners, including but not limited 
to English language learner students. However, fewer alternative routes 
to certification (51 percent) than traditional programs reported 
requiring courses entirely focused on students with disabilities, while 
the percentage of alternative routes that required courses entirely 
focused on English language learners was similar to traditional 
programs. In general, there is a lack of consensus regarding what makes 
a teacher effective. However, several experts we spoke with suggested 
an integrated or infused approach to incorporating content on these 
student subgroups into multiple courses for prospective teachers as a 
preferred method for preparing teachers. In addition, several experts 
emphasized the importance of collaboration among faculty members with 
regard to preparing prospective teachers to instruct these students. 

Figure 4: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required at 
Least One Course Entirely Focused on Students with Disabilities and 
English Language Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image; multiple vertical bar graph] 

Programs: Elementary Programs; 
Students with disabilities: 73%; 
English language learners: 20%. 

Programs: Secondary Programs; 
Students with disabilities: 67%; 
English language learners: 16%. 

Programs: Alternative routes[A]; 
Students with disabilities: 51%. 
English language learners: 17%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

Notes: Data on elementary and secondary programs refer to traditional 
teacher preparation programs. Data on alternative routes to 
certification include programs that prepare both elementary and 
secondary general classroom teachers. 

[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. 

[End of figure] 

Most traditional teacher preparation programs reported that their 
required courses on students with disabilities included information on 
major categories of disabilities; relevant state and federal laws; and 
instructional strategies to meet the diverse needs of these students, 
such as differentiated instruction, determining and utilizing 
accommodations for instruction and assessment, and Response to 
Intervention (see figure 5). 

Figure 5: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective 
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs on 
Instructing Students with Disabilities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Topic for required courses: Major categories of disabilities; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 90%. 

Topic for required courses: Relevant state and federal laws; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 89%. 

Topic for required courses: Differentiated instruction[A]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 88%. 

Topic for required courses: Determining and utilizing 
accommodations[B]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 86%. 

Topic for required courses: Data-driven instruction[C]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 86%. 

Topic for required courses: Positive behavioral interventions and 
supports[D]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 85%. 

Topic for required courses: Collaborating and participating in IEP 
development and implementation; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 81%. 

Topic for required courses: Response to intervention; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 80%. 

Topic for required courses: Appropriate use of technology and assistive 
technology; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 75%. 

Topic for required courses: Universal design for learning[E]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
students with disabilities: 73%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

[A] Differentiated instruction refers to the use of flexible teaching 
approaches to benefit the individual learning needs of all students. 

[B] Accommodations are services or support related to a student's 
disability that allows him or her to fully access and demonstrate 
knowledge in a particular subject matter. 

[C] Data-driven instruction refers to the use of student data to inform 
instruction that specifically targets student needs. 

[D] Positive behavioral interventions and supports refers to an 
operational framework that guides selection, integration, and 
implementation of the best scientifically-based academic and behavioral 
practices for improving academic and behavior outcomes for all 
students. 

[E] Universal design for learning refers to a framework for designing 
educational environments that helps all students gain knowledge, 
skills, and enthusiasm for learning. 

[End of figure] 

Programs that required specific courses on English language learners 
most often reported including topics related to communication with 
students and families and connecting lessons and instruction in ways 
that demonstrate cultural sensitivity, as shown in figure 6. Of the 
various topics we asked about in our survey related to instructing 
English language learners, the least likely topic to be included as 
part of the required courses for both elementary and secondary teachers 
was English language acquisition or development. However, experts we 
spoke to in the field of teacher preparation for English language 
learners emphasized the need for general classroom teachers to have 
knowledge of language acquisition. 

Figure 6: Topics Included in Required Courses for Prospective 
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Traditional Programs on 
Instructing English Language Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Survey	percentage
Topic for required courses: Communication with students demonstrating 
sensitivity to cultural/language differences; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
English language learners: 84%. 

Topic for required courses: Communication with families demonstrating 
sensitivity to cultural/language differences; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
English language learners: 80%. 

Topic for required courses: Connecting instruction to experiences, home 
languages, and culture; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
English language learners: 79%. 

Topic for required courses: Accommodating instruction appropriately for 
English language learners; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
English language learners: 73%. 

Topic for required courses: Relevant state and federal laws pertaining 
to English language learners; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
English language learners: 66%. 

Topic for required courses: Strategies for effective collaboration with 
ESL teachers; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
English language learners: 60%. 

Topic for required courses: English language acquisition or development	
Percentage of teacher preparation programs that required courses on 
English language learners: 56%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

[End of figure] 

Teacher preparation programs nationally varied in whether or not they 
required field experiences for prospective teachers with these student 
subgroups, but overall, a larger percentage of these programs required 
field experiences for prospective teachers with students with 
disabilities than with English language learners (see figure 7). 
Examples of field experiences can include observing teachers, 
participating in the development of individualized education programs 
for students with disabilities, and tutoring English language learners. 
The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, a 
professional accrediting entity for institutions that prepare teachers, 
has identified field experience as one of six key components that 
should be incorporated into these programs.[Footnote 28] 

Figure 7: Percentage of Teacher Preparation Programs That Required 
Field Experiences with Students with Disabilities and English Language 
Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image; multiple vertical bar graph] 

Programs: Elementary Programs; 
Students with disabilities: 58%; 
English language learners: 28%. 

Programs: Secondary Programs; 
Students with disabilities: 51%; 
English language learners: 22%. 

Programs: Alternative routes[A]; 
Students with disabilities: 28%. 
English language learners: 12%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

Notes: For traditional elementary and secondary programs, field 
experiences typically occur before a prospective teacher becomes 
certified to teach. To obtain similar information on field experiences 
for alternative routes to certification, which can generally accelerate 
the time it takes for a prospective teacher to become the teacher of 
record in a classroom, we obtained information on field experiences for 
these programs that occurred prior to prospective teachers assuming 
their position as the teacher of record. 

[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. 

[End of figure] 

Teacher preparation programs can offer a variety of field experiences 
for prospective teachers, although our survey results indicate that 
requirements for specific types of field experiences with students with 
disabilities and English language learners are not widespread. The type 
of field experiences most often required for prospective elementary and 
secondary teachers for both student subgroups was to observe existing 
teachers working with these students in their classrooms (see figure 
8). However, this was required in less than half of the programs. 
Assisting teachers or other school professionals and student teaching 
were also among the most frequently reported field experiences required 
with these students. While a student teaching placement is a typical 
component of a teacher preparation program, based on our survey 
results, less than one-third of these programs required that 
prospective teachers work with either of these student subgroups during 
their student teaching experience. However, more programs reported 
expecting that prospective teachers would gain experience working with 
students with disabilities and English language learners as part of 
their student teaching experience, than reported having formal 
requirements in place. 

Figure 8: Types of Field Experiences Required by Traditional Teacher 
Preparation Programs for Prospective Teachers on Instructing Students 
with Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph] 

Field experience with students with disabilities: Observe teachers with 
students with disabilities in schools: 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 45%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 36%. 

Field experience with students with disabilities: Student teaching; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 30%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 23%. 

Field experience with students with disabilities: Assist teachers or 
other school professionals; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 29%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 23%. 

Field experience with students with disabilities: Tutor students with 
disabilities; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 17%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 10%. 

Field experience with students with disabilities: Participate in IEP 
meetings; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 11%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 7%. 

Field experience with students with disabilities: Interact with 
families of students with disabilities; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 7%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 5%. 

Field experience with students with disabilities: Participate in 
students with disabilities, education-related community events with 
students with disabilities; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 8%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 5%. 

Field experience with English language learners: Observe teachers with 
English language learners in schools; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 22%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 15%. 

Field experience with English language learners: Student teaching; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 17%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 12%. 

Field experience with English language learners: Assist teachers or 
other school professionals; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 12%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 9%. 

Field experience with English language learners: Tutor English language 
learners students; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 7%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 5%. 

Field experience with English language learners: Interact with families 
of English language learners; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 7%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 4%. 

Field experience with English language learners: Participate in English 
language learner, education-related community events; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
elementary teachers: 2%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, required for prospective 
secondary teachers: 1%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

[End of figure] 

Most Programs Reported Taking Steps to Better Prepare Teachers for 
Instructing These Subgroups, Yet Cited Challenges in Providing This 
Preparation: 

Based on our survey results, an estimated 70 percent of teacher 
preparation programs have taken steps in the last 3 years or were 
planning to take steps in the next 2 years to better prepare 
prospective elementary and secondary teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities, and 58 percent reported having taken or planning to take 
steps for English language learners. Hiring professional education 
faculty with experience working with these students and adapting 
existing required courses (see figure 9) were the two most likely types 
of program improvements recently taken by these programs for both 
student subgroups. 

Figure 9: Program Improvements Recently Completed by Teacher 
Preparation Programs to Better Prepare Prospective Teachers for 
Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph] 

Types of program improvements: Hired professional education faculty 
with experience working with these students; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 59%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 52%; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 42%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 37%. 

Types of program improvements: Adapted existing required courses; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 45%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 43%; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 40%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 35%. 

Types of program improvements: Increased collaboration with faculty 
that have expertise working with these students; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 44%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 41%; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 29%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 25%. 

Types of program improvements: Adopted new requirements for field 
experiences with these students; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 29%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 27%; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 28%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 23%. 

Types of program improvements: Adopted new required courses; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 26%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for Students with disabilities: 25%; 
Elementary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 20%; 
Secondary Programs - Improvements for English language learners: 15%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 
percentage points or less at the 95 percent confidence level for the 
responses pertaining to improvement for English language learners for 
elementary and secondary programs. 

[B] The statistic for secondary programs--improvements for English 
language--learners has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage 
points or less at the 95 percent confidence level. 

[End of figure] 

In general, programs reported similar reasons for making improvements 
to better prepare teachers for instructing both student subgroups, as 
shown in figure 10. Teacher preparation programs most frequently cited 
input from faculty members as a top reason for making improvements to 
better equip teachers who instruct both student subgroups. Regarding 
English language learners, most programs cited changes in student 
demographics as a top reason for prompting these actions. In addition, 
over 50 percent of programs viewed the following as major or moderate 
reasons for making improvements: (1) new research or information on 
best practices, (2) feedback from local school districts, and (3) 
follow-up with program completers indicated a need in this area. 

Figure 10: Reasons Reported by Teacher Preparation Programs That 
Prompted Program Improvements to Better Prepare Prospective Teachers 
for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language 
Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph] 

Reasons for improvements: Input from program faculty[A]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with 
disabilities: 81%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language 
learners: 76%. 

Reasons for improvements: Changes in student demographics[B]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with 
disabilities: 0; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language 
learners: 73%. 

Reasons for improvements: Follow-up with program completers; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with 
disabilities: 68%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language 
learners: 60%. 

Reasons for improvements: New research or information on best 
practices; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with 
disabilities: 70%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language 
learners: 63%. 

Reasons for improvements: Feedback from local school districts[A]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with 
disabilities: 69%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language 
learners: 67%. 

Reasons for improvements: Influence of national accreditation entities; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with 
disabilities: 49%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language 
learners: 46%. 

Reasons for improvements: New state standards for teacher preparation 
or licensure; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with 
disabilities: 45%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language 
learners: 46%. 

Reasons for improvements: Influence of national advocacy or membership 
organizations; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: Student with 
disabilities: 30%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs[C]: English language 
learners: 30%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

[A] These statistics have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 
percentage points or less at the 95 percent confidence level for 
questions pertaining to the English language learner subgroup. 

[B] We only asked about the extent to which changes in student 
demographics prompted program improvements with regard to the English 
language learner subgroup, given the recent growth of this population. 
In addition, this statistic has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 
percentage points or less at the 95 percent confidence level. 

[C] Percentages are based on the number of teacher preparation programs 
that listed these as major or moderate reasons for making improvements. 

[End of figure] 

Despite a number of recent improvements teacher preparation programs 
reported making, most institutions cited ongoing challenges in 
providing this training to prepare prospective teachers for instructing 
both student subgroups. On the basis of our survey results, the 
challenge most frequently cited by institutions was not having enough 
program or credit hours due to state standards (see figure 11). 
Specifically, teacher preparation programs may struggle to find time in 
their programs to include additional preparation related to instructing 
these subgroups, given state standards that can include limitations on 
the maximum number of program or credit hours allowed or specific 
topics that must be addressed in required courses. Other top challenges 
reported by institutions included difficulty arranging field 
experiences, including student teaching for prospective teachers, and 
limited faculty with experience working with these two subgroups. Based 
on these responses, it appears that the improvements most frequently 
being taken by these institutions are to address their top challenges. 
For example, programs frequently reported hiring faculty members with 
experience working with these student subgroups as a way to better 
prepare teachers, which would help to address one of the top challenges 
reported by these programs. In addition, institutions are adapting 
existing courses to incorporate content on instructing these students, 
possibly to help their programs better prepare teachers without 
exceeding the maximum number of program or credit hours required by 
state standards. Finally, we found that the challenges reported by 
teacher preparation programs were not associated with program size, 
indicating that even large programs with potentially greater access to 
resources face similar challenges preparing prospective teachers for 
these student subgroups. 

Figure 11: Challenges Faced by Teacher Preparation Programs in 
Preparing Prospective Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities 
and English Language Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph] 

Types of challenges: Not enough program hours due to state standards; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
60%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
59%. 

Types of challenges: Finding appropriate field experiences, including 
student teaching; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
54%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
51%. 

Types of challenges: Finding faculty with experience working with these 
students; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
41%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
52%. 

Types of challenges: Ensuring appropriate balance between theory and 
practice; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
40%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
32%. 

Types of challenges: Addressing diverse needs among students with 
disabilities; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
35%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
33%. 

Types of challenges: Awareness of research-based practices; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
14%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
14%. 

Types of challenges: Lack of collaboration with special education or 
ESL faculty; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
6%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
10%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

[End of figure] 

While some institutions reported receiving support from state agencies 
and Education, approximately half of the teacher preparation programs 
indicated they could benefit from additional information or assistance. 
According to our survey results, during the 2007-2008 academic year, an 
estimated 64 percent of institutions received assistance from state 
agencies in preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities, 
and 53 percent received assistance in preparing teachers to work with 
English language learners. Examples of assistance from state agencies 
included providing information on research-based practices or 
sponsoring a statewide conference. An estimated 40 percent of these 
institutions received assistance from Education in preparing teachers 
to work with these student subgroups. Examples cited by these 
institutions of assistance provided to them by Education include grant 
funding, Web sites, conferences, and other published materials from 
Education. As shown in figure 12, an estimated 50 percent of 
institutions would greatly benefit from information or assistance, 
specifically in the areas of reforming curricula and identifying 
research-based instructional strategies for both student subgroups, as 
well as strengthening faculty knowledge of and experience specifically 
with English language learners. Finally, when asked about how the 
federal government could assist them in preparing teachers to work with 
these student subgroups, 142 of the 303 institutions that completed our 
survey responded to this open-ended question, and about half of the 
qualitative responses were related to additional funding needs. More 
than one-third of institutions that responded to this question 
expressed a need for technical assistance in the form of research, 
training, and other information. 

Figure 12: Types of Information or Assistance Reported by Teacher 
Preparation Programs That Could Greatly Benefit Their Efforts to 
Prepare Teachers to Work with Students with Disabilities and English 
Language Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple horizontal bar graph] 

Types of information or assistance: Ways to reform curriculum to better 
prepare teachers; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
52%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
52%. 

Types of information or assistance: Research-based instructional 
strategies; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
48%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
53%. 

Types of information or assistance: Strengthening faculty knowledge and 
experience; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
43%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
51%. 

Types of information or assistance: Developing effective student 
teaching opportunities; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
41%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
42%. 

Types of information or assistance: Teaching cultural and socioeconomic 
awareness[A]; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
0; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
35%. 

Types of information or assistance: Reforming state standards to 
emphasize preparation for instructing these students; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, Student with Disabilities: 
30%; 
Percentage of teacher preparation programs, English language learners: 
31%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

[A] We asked about information and assistance on teaching cultural and 
socioeconomic awareness, in general, and not in relation to any 
particular student subgroup. 

[End of figure] 

The States We Visited Set Varying Requirements for the Preparation of 
Teachers to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English Language 
Learners, though All Offered Ongoing Training to Teachers and 
Experienced Challenges Meeting Training Needs: 

The four states we visited varied in their coursework and field 
experience requirements for teacher preparation programs for 
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners. 
In addition to setting requirements for teacher preparation programs, 
each of the four states and eight school districts provided training 
opportunities to practicing teachers for instructing these student 
subgroups. Nevertheless, officials said they faced challenges providing 
training to prospective and practicing teachers. 

The States We Visited Set Varying Requirements for Preparing Teachers 
to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

Coursework Requirements for Teacher Preparation Programs: 

The standards set by the four states we visited for teacher preparation 
programs required varying coursework for prospective teachers on 
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners. 
California and Nebraska prescribed specific topics related to 
instructing students with disabilities that must be covered by teacher 
preparation programs in their states. Specifically, programs in these 
states must cover information on types of disabilities, meeting the 
needs of special education students in the general classroom, and 
knowledge of the individualized education program process. In Georgia 
and Texas, state standards require that all teacher preparation 
programs provide coursework on students with disabilities, and Georgia 
specifies that at least one course must be entirely focused on students 
with disabilities, although the structure of this course can 
vary.[Footnote 29] California, which is home to nearly one-third of the 
nation's English language learners, also required specific coursework 
for instructing English language learners, such as tools for English 
language development, teaching strategies, and legal requirements, as 
well as requirements for coursework on student diversity. The other 
three states we visited also required coursework on student diversity, 
although only Georgia defined language as a type of diversity. 
Nebraska's and Texas's requirements do not specifically mention 
language or English language learners in the diversity requirements. 
[Footnote 30] However, these three states offer teachers the 
opportunity to obtain additional targeted training to work with these 
students, often referred to as an English as a second language (ESL) 
endorsement.[Footnote 31] 

Field Experience Requirements for Teacher Preparation Programs: 

Among the four states we visited, only California required field 
experiences with both students with disabilities and English language 
learners. State educational officials from two of the other states 
explained that programs already provide or try to provide these 
placements, and so requiring it was unnecessary. For example, a senior 
official from Nebraska's teacher certification office said that the 
state has not considered requiring field experience with students with 
disabilities since programs clearly make an effort to offer these 
experiences for prospective teachers, as these opportunities are more 
universally available. However, she said that they have not made field 
experiences with English language learners a requirement, because so 
few districts have large populations of these students. 

State Outreach to Teacher Preparation Programs: 

During our site visits, we learned of a few examples that involved each 
of the four states conducting outreach to teacher preparation programs 
on preparing prospective teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities and English language learners. For example, Georgia's 
state educational agency convened both special and general education 
faculty members to discuss issues related to preparing prospective 
teachers to instruct students with disabilities. In Texas, as part of 
an annual meeting for institutions of higher education that received 
federal grant funding to improve teacher quality, the state agency for 
higher education recently presented effective instructional strategies 
to higher education faculty for math and science teachers to use with 
English language learners. 

Each State and School District We Visited Provided Assistance to 
Practicing Teachers for Instructing Both Student Subgroups: 

State and District Assistance for Practicing Teachers with Students 
with Disabilities: 

In addition to support for prospective teachers, each of the four state 
educational agencies and the eight school districts we visited provided 
training to practicing general classroom teachers on instructing 
students with disabilities. At the state level, assistance provided to 
general classroom teachers focused on special education initiatives 
designed for use in the general classroom. For example, all four states 
told us about initiatives that focused on meeting the educational needs 
of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms through Response 
to Intervention and co-teaching.[Footnote 32] Response to Intervention 
helps general classroom teachers, as part of a multidisciplinary team 
effort, to identify struggling learners and adapt to their learning 
styles, while co-teaching involves pairing a general classroom teacher 
with a special education teacher. California and Georgia both reported 
developing written guidance and training on co-teaching for use at the 
local level by teachers and administrators. Three of the state 
educational agencies we spoke with also offered online resources such 
as links to various Education-funded technical assistance centers and 
grant-related information, including federal formula funding under ESEA 
and IDEA that can be used to help general classroom teachers in 
instructing students with disabilities. 

Conversely, many of the district officials and school administrators we 
spoke with said they primarily focused on meeting the needs of their 
special education teachers, but support was typically available to 
general classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities 
through instructional coaches hired by the districts or special 
education personnel at the individual schools. Overall, general 
classroom teachers we spoke with said they relied on assistance from 
special education teachers within their schools, and several schools 
mentioned having co-teaching arrangements in place. Finally, three of 
the districts reported requiring training for general classroom 
teachers to instruct students with disabilities. For example, one 
district in Nebraska required all elementary teachers to take training 
on Response to Intervention. Nationwide, an Education-funded survey 
found that almost all school districts provided professional 
development for teachers with at least some emphasis on instructional 
strategies for students with individualized education programs under 
IDEA.[Footnote 33] 

State and District Assistance for Practicing Teachers with English 
Language Learners: 

Consistent with the assistance provided to help teachers instruct 
students with disabilities, all four of our selected states held 
statewide conferences or trainings offered by the state or through 
regional educational service centers to help general classroom teachers 
instruct English language learners. State officials reported that these 
trainings focused on implementing statewide English language 
development standards and assessments, as well as specific content 
areas and grade levels. For example, Texas has for nearly 20 years 
offered an annual statewide symposium on the instruction of English 
language learners at the secondary level. Another example is the 
California Subject Matter Project, a network of 15 regional 
professional development providers that offers training and technical 
assistance to school districts, individual schools, and teachers on 
instructional techniques for English language learners in specific 
content areas, such as math and science.[Footnote 34] National data 
obtained by Education found that for the 2005-2006 school year, 42 out 
of 49 states that responded, including the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico, reported offering professional development to mainstream 
teachers who instruct English language learners.[Footnote 35] In 
addition, three of the four states we visited reported providing online 
resources that can be accessed by general classroom teachers, such as 
written guidance and online training on best practices for instructing 
this student subgroup. 

The eight districts we visited, most of which had higher concentrations 
of English language learners than the average district in their state, 
offered training opportunities and hired instructional coaches to 
provide individualized support to general classroom teachers with these 
students. School districts reported either providing training directly 
to teachers or helping them access training from other entities. For 
example, teachers from the Los Angeles Unified School District 
participated in an Education-funded program through a local institution 
of higher education, which provided training on instructional 
strategies and required teachers to visit the homes of their students 
with limited English proficiency to gain a better understanding of the 
students' cultural backgrounds. Nationwide, an Education-funded survey 
found that approximately 50 percent of districts provided professional 
development for teachers with at least some emphasis on instructional 
strategies for students with limited English proficiency.[Footnote 36] 

A number of the school districts we visited also encouraged teachers to 
earn an ESL endorsement by paying for the course or offering financial 
incentives after teachers received their endorsement. Four districts 
required general classroom teachers to receive training to better 
prepare them to instruct English language learners. For example, a 
Texas district requires teachers trained through alternative routes to 
receive a supplemental ESL certification. Several of the districts we 
visited used ESEA Title I, Title II, and Title III funding to hire 
English language learner instructional coaches and related personnel 
who could assist all teachers with instructional strategies, cultural 
issues, and other areas. Many of the teachers we spoke with reported 
relying on these personnel to assist them. At the individual school 
level, we also learned of schoolwide approaches to ensure that content 
is accessible to all students. For example, teachers in an elementary 
school we visited in Nebraska used visual tools to help students 
struggling with English by depicting illustrations of concepts that may 
be difficult to comprehend in writing. 

We noted some differences in the type of assistance provided for either 
subgroup depending on the size of the district.[Footnote 37] In 
general, the smaller districts we visited made training available to 
their teachers through regional educational service centers and state 
educational agencies, in addition to institutions of higher education. 
Larger school districts we visited typically offered their own 
districtwide training for teachers, while still using resources offered 
by their state educational agency or institutions of higher education. 

State Educational Agencies and School Districts Reported Challenges 
Ensuring That Practicing Teachers Are Prepared to Instruct Both 
Subgroups: 

State officials and, at the local level, district officials and school 
administrators we spoke with said that general classroom teachers were 
generally unprepared to instruct students with disabilities and English 
language learners due to three key challenges: (1) limited exposure to 
these subgroups in teacher preparation programs, (2) funding and time 
to train practicing teachers, and (3) identifying instructional 
strategies for both student subgroups. A number of state and school 
district officials expressed a desire for a stronger focus in teacher 
preparation programs on preparing teachers to instruct both subgroups. 
For example, some state and school district officials both reported 
wanting more preparation for prospective teachers on differentiating 
instruction for diverse educational needs, co-teaching with special 
education personnel when working with students with disabilities, 
implementing Response to Intervention for monitoring students at risk 
for poor learning outcomes, and understanding and instructing different 
cultures. Several of the school district officials noted that new 
teachers often require additional training or assistance to work with 
these subgroups. 

Specifically, at the school district level, another challenge 
frequently cited by school district officials, administrators, and 
teachers in each state was identifying available funding and finding 
time for teachers to attend useful training sessions. District 
officials said that teachers can receive training during or after the 
regular workday, or during the summer, but all of these times have 
disadvantages. For example, releasing teachers for training during 
regular work hours incurs costs for substitute teachers, which states 
and districts said is challenging because of limited funding and 
competing priorities. Also, training in the summer and after hours is 
not always feasible due to contracts and personal schedules. One 
principal said that scheduling training during the summer is difficult 
because teachers are not required to attend. Teachers at one school 
said they struggle to participate in training outside the workday 
because it is difficult to fit into their schedules. Some school 
districts we spoke with were addressing these challenges by asking 
teachers who receive training to hold information-sharing sessions with 
other teachers in their school, and by arranging training opportunities 
at individual schools where teachers might be more likely to 
participate because of reduced time and travel burdens. 

Additional challenges, particularly in instructing English language 
learners were identified by a number of school district officials, 
administrators, and teachers, including the need for more information 
on instructional strategies, assessing student progress, and 
understanding cultural issues. At the individual schools we visited, 
general classroom teachers and administrators we spoke with identified 
the need for instructional strategies specifically to address 
challenges in instructing English language learners, such as adjusting 
instruction to meet the varying needs of students, assessing each 
student's ability to understand content, and teaching students when 
their schooling is interrupted due to family mobility. A number of 
administrators and teachers discussed the challenges they face in 
understanding the numerous cultures represented by their students as 
well as communicating with families who have limited English 
proficiency. We also learned of some unique challenges for teachers at 
the secondary level who instruct English language learners. For 
example, officials in one of the states explained that instructing 
English language learners at the secondary level is challenging because 
the students must make tremendous gains in both complex content and 
language in a relatively short time to meet graduation requirements. 
Some of these students have arrived to the country recently or have 
limited formal education. Officials in one district noted that these 
students may become frustrated with learning a new language, and 
teachers struggle to understand their cultural differences. In 
addition, because students spend time with different teachers for 
different content areas at the secondary level, teachers have 
difficulty coordinating their instruction for English language learner 
students. 

Multiple Education Offices Provide Assistance to Help Teachers Instruct 
Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, but No 
Systematic Coordination Exists among These Offices: 

Six Education offices provide financial support and oversee about 100 
regional and national research and technical assistance providers that 
can work at the state and local levels to help general classroom 
teachers instruct students with disabilities and English language 
learners.[Footnote 38] However, no departmentwide mechanism exists 
within Education to ensure that all relevant offices work together to 
maximize the department's contributions toward preparing teachers to 
effectively instruct these student subgroups. The grant programs and 
research and technical assistance providers overseen by these offices 
are shown in figure 13 and are discussed in more detail in the 
following sections.[Footnote 39] 

Figure 13: Six Education Offices Oversee Grants and Regional and 
National Research and Technical Assistance Providers That Can Support 
Teacher Preparation to Instruct Students with Disabilities and English 
Language Learners: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

U.S. Department of Education: 

IES: Institute of Education Sciences; 
* Regional research and technical assistance provider: 
- Regional Educational Laboratories (10); 
* National research and technical assistance provider: 
- National Centers on Education and Special Education Research; 
- Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of 
English Language Learners; 
- What Works Clearinghouse. 

OII: Office of Innovation and Improvement; 
* Grant program: 
- Teacher Quality Partnership Grants. 

OPEPD: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; 
* National research and technical assistance provider: 
- Doing What Works. 

OSERS: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; 
* Grant programs: 
- IDEA Grant Programs (Parts B and D); 
* Regional research and technical assistance provider: 
- Regional Resource Centers (6); 
* National research and technical assistance provider: 
- Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network (48 centers). 

OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; 
* Grant programs: 
- ESEA Grant Programs (Titles I and II, Title III-formula); 
* Regional research and technical assistance providers: 
- Regional Comprehensive Centers (16); 
- Regional Equity Assistance Centers (10); 
* National research and technical assistance provider: 
- National Content Centers (5); 3 jointly funded by OSERS. 

OELA: Office of English Language Acquisition; 
* Grant program: 
- ESEA Grant Programs (Title III-discretionary); 
* National research and technical assistance provider: 
- National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documents and interviews with 
officials, Art Explosion (images). 

[End of figure] 

Ten Grant Programs Overseen by Four Education Offices Can Help Teachers 
Instruct These Student Subgroups: 

Ten grant programs administered by four Education offices either 
require or allow grantees to use some of the funds to help general 
classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and English 
language learners. Most of the funding focuses on training practicing 
teachers already in the classroom rather than prospective teachers, 
although none of the programs specifically tracks the use of funds to 
prepare general classroom teachers to instruct either of these 
subgroups. Four different Education offices--the Office of Elementary 
and Secondary Education (OESE), Office of Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and Office of English Language 
Acquisition (OELA), and the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII)--
oversee these grants, each with a respective specific focus on 
elementary and secondary education generally, special education, 
English language acquisition, or innovative educational practices. See 
table 2 for a description of the 10 programs we identified within these 
four offices. 

Table 2: Ten Federal Programs Provide Funding That Can Be Used to 
Prepare General Classroom Teachers to Work with Students with 
Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

Require at least some funds to be used to prepare or train teachers to 
instruct one of these subgroups: 

Program name and legislative authority: English Language Acquisition 
State Grants, Title III, Part A, ESEA; 
Education office: OESE; 
Subgroup targeted: English language learners; 
Purpose: To improve the education of English language learners by 
helping them learn English and meet state academic content and student 
academic achievement standards. Some of the funds must be used to 
support high-quality professional development for classroom 
teachers[A]; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$677.6, Formula[B]. 

Program name and legislative authority: Teacher Quality Partnership 
Grants, Title II, HEA; 
Education office: OII; 
Subgroup targeted: All students; 
Purpose: To improve student achievement and the quality of prospective 
and new teachers by improving the preparation of prospective teachers 
and enhancing professional development activities for new teachers. The 
program also holds teacher preparation programs at institutions of 
higher education accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers 
and supports recruiting highly qualified individuals, including 
minorities and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching 
force; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$50.0[C], Competitive[D]. 

Program name and legislative authority: Special Education Technical 
Assistance and Dissemination, Part D, IDEA; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Subgroup targeted: Students with disabilities; 
Purpose: To promote academic achievement and improve results for 
children with disabilities by providing technical assistance, model 
demonstration projects, and dissemination of information, and 
implementation of activities that are supported by scientifically based 
research; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$48.5, Competitive. 

Program name and legislative authority: English Language Acquisition 
National Professional Development Project, Title III, Part A, ESEA; 
Education office: OELA; 
Subgroup targeted: English language learners; 
Purpose: To support preparation for prospective teachers and 
professional development activities for education personnel working 
with English language learners; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$41.8, Competitive. 

Allow funds to be used to prepare or train teachers to instruct one of 
these subgroups: 

Program name and legislative authority: Improving Basic Programs 
Operated by Local Educational Agencies, Title I, Part A, ESEA; 
Education office: OESE; 
Subgroup targeted: All students; 
Purpose: To provide assistance to local educational agencies and 
schools with high numbers or high percentages of poor children to help 
ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$14,492.4[E], Formula. 

Program name and legislative authority: Special Education-Grants to 
States, Part B, IDEA; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Subgroup targeted: Students with disabilities; 
Purpose: To assist states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
freely associated states, and outlying areas in meeting the costs of 
providing special education and related services to children with 
disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$11,505.2[F], Formula. 

Program name and legislative authority: Improving Teacher Quality State 
Grants, Title II, Part A, ESEA; 
Education office: OESE; 
Subgroup targeted: All students; 
Purpose: To increase academic achievement by improving teacher and 
principal quality; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$2,947.7, Formula[G]. 

Program name and legislative authority: Special Education-Personnel 
Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with 
Disabilities, Part D, IDEA; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Subgroup targeted: Students with disabilities; 
Purpose: To help address state-identified needs for highly qualified 
personnel in special education, related services, early intervention, 
and regular education to work with children with disabilities, and to 
ensure that those personnel have the skills and knowledge needed to 
serve these children; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$90.7, Competitive. 

Program name and legislative authority: Special Education-State 
Personnel Development Grants Program, Part D, IDEA; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Subgroup targeted: Students with disabilities; 
Purpose: To assist state educational agencies in reforming and 
improving their systems for personnel preparation and professional 
development in early intervention, educational, and transitional 
services in order to improve results for children with disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$48.0, Competitive. 

Program name and legislative authority: Native American and Alaska 
Native Children in School Program, Title III, Part A, ESEA; 
Education office: OELA; 
Subgroup targeted: English language learners; 
Purpose: To develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and 
to promote parental and community participation in language instruction 
educational programs. Some of the funds must be used to support high-
quality professional development for classroom teachers; 
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations (in millions) and type of funding: 
$5.0, Competitive. 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation. Budget information 
from fiscal year 2009 budget appropriations and Education's Fiscal Year 
2009 Budget Summary and Background Information. 

[A] This program includes teachers in classroom settings that are not 
the settings of language instructional education programs in its 
definition of classroom teachers. 

[B] The eligible recipients for the formula grant programs in this 
table are state educational agencies, which then pass much of the 
funding through to local educational agencies. 

[C] The Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program received an 
additional $100 million for fiscal year 2009 through the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5), signed 
into law on February 17, 2009. Funds from the Recovery Act are not 
reflected in this table. 

[D] Eligible recipients for many of the competitive grant programs in 
the table include institutions of higher education, state educational 
agencies, local educational agencies, or nonprofit organizations, 
sometimes in consortia or partnerships with each other. 

[E] The Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies 
program received an additional $10 billion through the Recovery Act for 
fiscal year 2009. 

[F] The Special Education-Grants to States program received an 
additional $11.3 billion through the Recovery Act for fiscal year 2009. 

[G] Of the overall funding for Title II, Part A, 2.5 percent--roughly 
$74 million--went to the state agency for higher education in each 
state to run a competitive statewide partnership grants program. 

[End of table] 

While together these programs provided nearly $30 billion, excluding 
funds from the Recovery Act, none of the programs specifically tracked 
the extent to which grantees use these funds to prepare general 
classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English 
language learners, and several of the programs' proposed designs 
suggested the funding used for this purpose was a relatively small 
portion of the overall funding available. For example, the two largest 
programs under the ESEA--the Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 
Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A) and Improving Teacher Quality 
State Grants program (Title II, Part A)--are large, multibillion dollar 
formula grant programs designed to provide flexibility to states and 
school districts to address their needs in a variety of areas and 
benefit a wide range of students. While these two programs had fiscal 
year 2004 appropriations of $12.3 billion for Title I, Part A and $2.9 
billion for Title II, Part A, Education reported that the districts 
spent 8 percent and 18 percent of these funds, respectively, for 
professional development in 2004-2005. Officials emphasized that 
professional development funds are used to train practicing teachers in 
a wide range of topic areas, which may include helping general 
classroom teachers instruct these student subgroups. Based on our 
interviews with state and school district officials in the four states 
we visited, we learned that funds from these programs allowed school 
districts to assist teachers working with students with disabilities 
and English language learners. Examples included hiring educational 
coaches to work with general classroom teachers, paying for substitute 
teachers to allow teachers to attend training sessions, and providing 
support for statewide conferences. 

Of the 10 grant programs we identified, 3 specifically targeted English 
language learners; 4 targeted students with disabilities; and the 
remaining 3 benefited all students, including those in these two 
student subgroups. The programs targeting English language learners 
aimed to prepare any teacher working with this subgroup. State 
educational and school district officials we met with who received 
funding from the largest of the three programs that targeted English 
language learners--the English Language Acquisition State Grants 
program--provided examples of how they used these funds to support 
general classroom teachers. This support included stipends for teachers 
to attend relevant workshops, hiring bilingual and cultural liaisons to 
work individually with teachers, and districtwide training sessions. In 
support of instruction for students with disabilities, OSERS's Special 
Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination program specifies 
funds to be used to provide training for both general education and 
special education teachers, among other required uses. The grantees 
disseminate research and provide technical assistance on a wide range 
of special education topics. Several of the grantees we spoke with 
reported providing information both online and through in-person 
workshops that can benefit general classroom teachers. Similarly, the 
Special Education-State Personnel Development Grant Program requires 90 
percent of funds to be spent on personnel preparation and professional 
development related to instructing students with disabilities; while 
general classroom teachers can benefit from the activities, Education 
officials emphasized the main purpose of the program is to prepare 
prospective and practicing special education teachers. California 
reported using this funding to support a program that helps teachers 
address behavioral issues for the general education curricula, and 
Georgia provided support to middle and secondary level math teachers to 
improve instruction to students with disabilities. 

While most of the overall funding supports practicing teachers already 
in the classroom, rather than preparing prospective teachers at the 
teacher preparation level, three of the grant programs--which accounted 
for approximately $183 million--either require or allow funding to 
prepare prospective teachers to instruct these subgroups. (See table 3 
for information on which programs required or allowed funding to 
prepare prospective teachers to instruct these subgroups.) For example, 
the HEA Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, as amended by HEOA, 
requires grantees to prepare prospective teachers to meet the specific 
learning needs of all students, including students with disabilities 
and English language learners. Similarly, in its fiscal year 2007 
request for proposals, the English Language Acquisition National 
Professional Development Project invited proposals from teacher 
education programs on ways to improve their programs to better prepare 
prospective teachers to provide instruction to English language 
learners, among other goals. According to a senior program official, 
about half of the applicants responded to this priority. 

Table 3: Funding Required or Allowed to Prepare or Train Prospective or 
Practicing Teachers: 

ESEA: Program name: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 
Educational Agencies; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed. 

ESEA: Program name: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed. 

ESEA: Program name: English Language Acquisition State Grants; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Required. 

ESEA: Program name: English Language Acquisition National Professional 
Development Project; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: Allowed; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Required. 

ESEA: Program name: Native American and Alaska Native Children in 
School Program; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed. 

HEA: Program name: Teacher Quality Partnership Grants; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: Required; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: Required; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]. 

IDEA: Program name: Special Education-Grants to States; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]. 

IDEA: Program name: Special Education-Personnel Development to Improve 
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: Allowed; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]. 

IDEA: Program name: Special Education-National Activities-Technical 
Assistance and Dissemination; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Required; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]. 

IDEA: Program name: Special Education-State Personnel Development Grant 
Program; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
Students with disabilities: Funding for practicing teachers: Allowed; 
English language learners: Funding for prospective teachers: [Empty]; 
English language learners: Funding for practicing teachers: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education documentation. 

[End of table] 

Education Oversees Numerous Regional and National Providers That Offer 
Assistance to Prospective and Practicing Teachers for Instructing 
Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners: 

In addition to grants for teacher preparation and training, a number of 
Education offices support regional and national research institutions 
and technical assistance providers offering help to policymakers and 
educators at the state and local levels. Specifically, three different 
program offices support four types of regional technical assistance 
providers that can help general classroom teachers instruct students 
with disabilities and English language learners, among other activities 
(see appendix II for more information on the regional research and 
technical assistance centers we interviewed). 

Regional Research and Technical Assistance Providers: 

* Regional comprehensive centers: Supported by OESE to work with state 
educational agencies to help increase state capacity to assist regional 
education agencies, school districts, and individual schools in meeting 
their student achievement goals. While the regional comprehensive 
centers are designed to work with state educational agencies, they can 
assist general classroom teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities or English language learners if requested by states. For 
example, one regional comprehensive center we spoke with has developed 
a training course for general classroom teachers on instructing English 
language learners, which trains small teams involving teachers and 
their principal, and the information is expected to be shared with 
colleagues in the home schools. We also spoke with some of the teachers 
who attended the training, who reported that it was the first time the 
school obtained a practical and useful manual on how to instruct 
English language learners. An administrator who was involved in the 
program also commented that his involvement helped teachers effectively 
share the strategies they learned with their colleagues. 

* Regional equity assistance centers: Supported by OESE to work with 
school districts and other responsible government entities to ensure 
that their policies and procedures provide equitable opportunities for 
all students, regardless of race or national origin. Most of the 
centers we interviewed provided training on instructional strategies 
for English language learners. For example, one equity assistance 
center conducted a session for one state's local regional educational 
service centers on classroom strategies for English language learners 
that the service center could then pass on to school districts in its 
region. 

* Regional resource centers: Supported by OSERS to assist state and 
local educational agencies in the development and implementation of 
performance plans and measurement systems based on indicators 
established by the office. While this may include helping states 
prepare general classroom teachers for instructing students with 
disabilities, it is not a stated priority for these centers. In 
general, the regional resource centers we interviewed reported that 
their main focus is on assisting state educational agencies to develop 
and implement performance plans for serving students with disabilities, 
and that any direct work with general classroom teachers is tangential. 
However, one regional resource center we spoke with reported that the 
increased focus on Response to Intervention has focused its work more 
on general classroom teachers. 

* Regional educational laboratories: Supported by the Institute of 
Education Sciences (IES) to provide policymakers, administrators, and 
teachers with expert advice, training, and technical assistance on how 
to interpret the latest findings from scientifically valid research 
pertaining to the requirements of ESEA. In instances in which 
scientific evidence is not available, the regional educational 
laboratories conduct applied research and development projects. For 
example, one regional educational laboratory is performing a study on 
whether using materials specifically written for English language 
learners increases student achievement. The laboratories' work is based 
on requests from states and school districts. None of the laboratories 
we spoke with focused on providing training or technical assistance 
directly to general classroom teachers. The research conducted by these 
centers is made publicly available through Education and individual 
laboratory Web sites. 

In addition, several Education offices oversee numerous national 
research and technical assistance providers that can assist teacher 
preparation programs, state educational agencies, and those working at 
the school district level with research, policy, and effective 
instructional practices for teaching students with disabilities and 
English language learners. These centers focus on a wide range of 
education issues and serve different target audiences (see appendix III 
for more information on the national research and technical assistance 
centers we interviewed). 

National Research and Technical Assistance Providers: 

* OESE supports five national content centers with expertise on 
specific issues facing educators. These centers primarily support the 
regional comprehensive centers in their efforts to work with states. 
Three of the centers--the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher 
Quality, the Center on Instruction, and the National High School 
Center--are jointly funded with OSERS and thus focus some of their 
activities on students with disabilities. 

* OSERS supports a network of more than 40 national technical 
assistance centers, each with a focus on some aspect of special 
education. For example, two of the centers--the National Center on 
Response to Intervention and the Center on Positive Behavioral 
Interventions and Supports--focus, respectively, on strategies to 
identify struggling learners and implement appropriate interventions in 
the general classroom setting and strategies to develop schoolwide 
disciplinary practices. In addition, the IRIS Center for Training 
Enhancements provides case studies and interactive online training 
modules that include video scenarios to allow users to see teachers 
engaging in various strategies to meet the needs of students with 
disabilities. These materials are publicly available online and are 
accessed by entities such as institutions of higher education, state 
educational agencies, and school districts. 

* OELA oversees the National Clearinghouse for English Language 
Acquisition, which is tasked with assisting states to implement Title 
III of ESEA and increasing their capacity to improve English language 
learner achievement. Through its Web site, the National Clearinghouse 
for English Language Acquisition provides resources for teachers on 
many aspects of the English language learner population and links to 
lesson plans and classroom techniques suitable for both specialists and 
general classroom teachers. The clearinghouse also helps state 
educational agencies with collecting and reporting data in compliance 
with ESEA Title III, and works with states to implement standards and 
assessments for these students. In addition, OELA supports the Limited 
English Proficiency Partnership, which provides a wide array of 
services and products to assist teachers in instructing English 
language learners. 

* IES administers a national resource for administrators and educators, 
the What Works Clearinghouse, which assesses research on the 
effectiveness of programs, products, practices, and policies so that 
educators are able to make informed decisions. The What Works 
Clearinghouse also produces practice guides for educators that address 
instructional challenges with research-based recommendations for 
schools and classrooms, which has included a practice guide focused on 
strategies for instructing English language learners and two recently 
issued guides on Response to Intervention. IES also administers the 
Education Resources Information Center, an online database of millions 
of published materials that Education has provided for the last 35 
years, which officials said can be a valuable resource, especially for 
teacher preparation programs. In addition, IES oversees the National 
Research and Development Centers program, which includes the Center for 
Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English 
Language Learners, a national center primarily focused on research. 
Finally, IES funds and disseminates research through its National 
Center for Education Research and the National Center for Special 
Education Research, which can include research on preparing prospective 
and practicing teachers to instruct students with disabilities and 
English language learners. 

* The Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD) 
manages Doing What Works, a Web site that translates What Works 
Clearinghouse practice guides into practical plans for teachers and 
local school districts. The Web site includes a tutorial to help 
teachers instruct English language learners and is currently in the 
process of developing modules on Response to Intervention for both math 
and reading. 

Most of the regional and national providers of research and technical 
assistance we interviewed focus on support to benefit practicing 
teachers already in the classroom, rather than prospective teachers 
enrolled in teacher preparation programs. Only one of the national 
providers we spoke with specifically focuses on teacher preparation 
programs, and it had recently expanded its focus to practicing teachers 
under its latest contract. However, a few providers reported that 
teacher preparation programs likely use their materials, even if the 
provider's interaction with these programs was not the main focus of 
their work. For example, while not the main focus of the center, one 
research center that focuses on the instruction of English language 
learners reported that its research has tangentially influenced teacher 
preparation programs through its partnerships with faculty at 
institutions of higher education. 

Despite these research and technical assistance providers' outreach 
activities, most teachers and administrators in the eight school 
districts we visited said they were unaware of many of the resources 
available. Some providers reported conducting outreach primarily to 
states, relying on state educational agencies to disseminate resources 
or information about their services to the local level. Several 
providers also reported some efforts to disseminate information through 
conference presentations, e-mail lists, and regular newsletters 
directly to all interested parties. However, we heard from a number of 
teachers and administrators that they had limited awareness of these 
Education-funded resources. Some said they did not have the time to 
review all of the available resources to find relevant materials. 
Education officials acknowledged the challenges faced in disseminating 
information broadly and reported recent improvements. For example, 
Doing What Works, which is focused on providing practical information 
to teachers, reported plans to increase its outreach efforts to 
classroom teachers as its available resources increase, and OSERS has 
funded a center to assist its entire provider network with 
disseminating information. 

A Departmentwide Mechanism for Coordinating the Relevant Activities of 
These Multiple Offices within Education Could Ensure the Most Efficient 
Use of Resources: 

Six offices within Education, each with its own subject matter focus 
and priorities, oversee the multiple grant programs and regional and 
national technical assistance providers that can support general 
classroom teachers' efforts to instruct students with disabilities and 
English language learners. 

Officials from each of the six Education offices that administer grant 
programs and other assistance related to preparing teachers for 
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners 
reported that some offices coordinate on individual efforts. For 
example, OSERS and OESE jointly fund and oversee the National 
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, the National Center on 
Response to Intervention, and the Center on Instruction. OPEPD has also 
made efforts to coordinate with other Education offices, particularly 
with IES. Specifically, OPEPD has modified the contract for its Doing 
What Works initiative--from an initiative that performs its own 
research to produce teacher training modules to one that develops and 
disseminates modules demonstrating teaching strategies based on 
empirical research performed by IES. This effort has helped to make 
IES's research available on a practical level to practicing general 
classroom teachers who instruct students with disabilities and English 
language learners; however, Education officials noted that the publicly 
available information may also be used by prospective teachers and 
their instructors within teacher preparation programs. 

Coordination among and within select Education offices also extends to 
the regional and national technical assistance providers they oversee. 
For example, OSERS and OESE collaborate on an annual conference that 
convenes the regional and national technical assistance providers they 
fund to discuss best practices and opportunities for increased 
coordination with respect to specific issues related to students with 
disabilities. As a result of the conference, the regional equity 
assistance centers, regional comprehensive centers, and regional 
resource centers from the Northeast and relevant national technical 
assistance providers have planned and implemented collaborative 
initiatives, such as a joint survey of regional needs in implementing 
Response to Intervention. Education officials told us that a similar 
initiative has also been launched in the North Central region. 
Officials from these technical assistance providers reported that this 
collaboration has led to a more efficient use of resources, a better 
understanding of all technical assistance programs existing in the 
region, and an opportunity to present a unified message to the state 
educational agencies with whom they work. In addition, OSERS 
established the Technical Assistance Coordination Center in fiscal year 
2008 to promote better coordination among its 48 regional and national 
technical assistance providers and better information dissemination. 
Finally, the National Dissemination Center, also funded by OSERS, is 
developing a Web site that will allow the public to search the Web 
sites of all technical assistance providers within OSERS's Technical 
Assistance and Dissemination Network, as well as OESE's comprehensive 
centers and regional equity assistance centers. 

Education has also begun new coordination efforts related to the 
Recovery Act that involve multiple offices, although these efforts do 
not currently focus on assistance to prepare general classroom teachers 
to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners. 
Given that the Recovery Act provides funds to improve teacher 
effectiveness, Education officials said that this presents an 
opportunity to coordinate the department's resources to improve teacher 
quality. Specifically, Education officials said that they recently 
initiated coordination efforts to address the Recovery Act requirements 
related to teachers by forming a team made up of representatives from 
several program offices and led by the Secretary's advisors. 

Despite some coordination efforts among select offices and prior 
efforts to coordinate, Education currently lacks a departmentwide 
mechanism to ensure that activities administered through these various 
offices coordinate their contributions generally, and their activities 
to prepare general classroom teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities and English language learners, specifically. Many 
officials within the program offices we spoke with highlighted a prior 
effort to coordinate among offices involved in teacher quality that 
convened regular meetings of all relevant program offices. Officials 
reported that these meetings apprised them of what other Education 
offices were doing with regard to professional development for 
teachers. One research office reported they shared the information they 
gathered from the field immediately, rather than waiting for a report 
to be issued, which helped offices tailor their programs to be current, 
rather than lagging behind their needs. Officials we spoke with said 
this working group was disbanded due to changing priorities within 
Education. 

Most of the officials we spoke with in the offices that play a role in 
supporting general classroom teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities and English language learners noted the potential value of 
a departmentwide mechanism for regular coordination among offices to 
increase their effectiveness. Officials said systematic coordination 
among Education offices related to teacher preparation for these 
student subgroups could help at every phase of the grant cycle, 
allowing offices to get relevant offices' input into requests for 
proposals or guidance it planned to issue. Another official stated that 
a departmentwide mechanism would help Education offices share 
information, so that offices that may have less experience working with 
these student subgroups can better understand and address their needs. 
For example, with the 2008 reauthorization of HEA, OII's Teacher 
Quality Partnership Grant program now requires a focus on preparing 
general classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and 
English language learners, for which OSERS's and OELA's expertise would 
be valuable. Officials noted that coordinating with other offices could 
enable program offices to benefit from the information obtained by 
Education's relevant research institutions, such as those overseen by 
IES. One official stated that a lack of coordination among relevant 
offices can lead to a loss in capacity because information is not as 
readily shared, particularly for cross-cutting issues such as preparing 
general classroom teachers for students with disabilities and English 
language learners. Several officials also emphasized the need for 
support from top management officials for departmentwide coordination 
among offices because, without this support, coordination is likely to 
become less of a priority for the offices. 

Our findings are similar to those of a related July 2009 report on 
Education's teacher quality initiatives.[Footnote 40] For example, we 
said in that report that teacher quality activities within Education 
are overseen by nine different program offices with little sustained 
coordination and no strategy for working systematically across program 
lines. The report recommended that the Secretary of Education establish 
and implement a strategy for sustained coordination among existing 
departmental offices and programs to aid information and resource 
sharing, and strengthen linkages among its efforts to help improve 
teacher quality. In its response to a draft of that report, Education 
said that it would consider forming a cross-program group focused on 
teacher quality, but also pointed out that such efforts do not always 
prove useful, indicating that it favors short-term, issue-specific 
coordination. In our response to Education in that report, while 
acknowledging that the department faces some challenges to 
coordination, we emphasized that we continue to believe that Education 
needs to develop a strategy for sustained coordination to ensure that 
different offices routinely become involved in sharing information and 
resources, as well as facilitating linkages among teacher quality 
improvement efforts. 

Our past work and other federal guidance has highlighted the importance 
of coordination to deliver results more efficiently in light of limited 
resources and multiple demands. As we have previously reported, 
uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and 
frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the 
program.[Footnote 41] We have also reported that leadership and 
organizational culture are necessary elements for a collaborative 
working relationship, emphasizing that committed leadership from all 
levels of the organization is needed to overcome barriers to 
coordination. In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act 
offers a structured means, through the development of strategic plans 
and performance reports, for identifying multiple programs--within and 
outside the agency--that contribute to the same or similar goals and 
for describing coordination efforts to ensure that goals are consistent 
and program efforts are mutually reinforcing.[Footnote 42] 

Conclusions: 

Education's performance plan outlines its goals for providing all 
children in this country, including students with disabilities and 
English language learners, with qualified teachers and the education 
they need to meet challenging academic standards. At the same time that 
increased attention is being paid to the academic achievement of 
students in these subgroups, many of them spend a large proportion of 
their day in general classrooms, rather than in special, separate 
classes. This places increased emphasis on effectively preparing 
general classroom teachers who may instruct these students to help them 
meet achievement goals. While federal grants, research, and technical 
assistance that can be used to support teachers in achieving these 
goals are available, the management and oversight of this assistance is 
spread among numerous Education offices. While some of these offices 
have recently increased coordination in some areas, coordination among 
all relevant offices to share information and expertise related to 
students with disabilities and English language learners in the general 
classroom does not occur on a regular basis. As a result, Education 
offices may not fully benefit from the expertise and experiences 
available departmentwide to assist teachers in instructing these 
students, which could potentially limit program effectiveness and 
prevent the most efficient use of resources. 

Greater coordination among Education offices is especially relevant in 
light of Congress's new focus, through HEOA, on preparing prospective 
teachers for instructing these subgroups, and the Recovery Act, which 
substantially increased funding for teacher preparation programs and 
for states and school districts to assist prospective and already 
practicing teachers. Attention to coordination among relevant offices 
specifically focused on assisting general classroom teachers in 
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners is 
warranted and needs to come from Education's leadership to ensure 
support for such an effort and help it endure. More systematic 
coordination focused on the ultimate goal of making progress in 
academic achievement for students with disabilities and English 
language learners in the general classroom would complement increased 
emphasis on coordination among Education offices involved in teacher 
quality efforts, as we recommended in our related July 2009 report. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education develop and implement a 
departmentwide mechanism to ensure more systematic coordination among 
Education's offices that oversee grant programs, research, and 
technical assistance that can help prospective and practicing teachers 
to instruct students with disabilities and English language learners in 
the general classroom. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 
Education's comments are reproduced in appendix IV. In its comments, 
Education agreed that coordination is beneficial and noted that it will 
explore the benefits of creating a mechanism to ensure more systematic 
coordination. More specifically, Education will review the advisability 
of forming a cross-program committee, but it would first want to ensure 
that such a group would lead to improvements in the way Education and 
its grantees implement programs that promote teacher quality. It added 
that, in the department's experience, creating an intradepartmental 
committee for the sole purpose of coordinating agency activities or 
sharing information across offices is not always useful, indicating a 
preference for bringing different offices together to work on discrete 
issues when such action is needed. Education commented that it had 
recently increased coordination efforts among multiple program offices 
to address new Recovery Act requirements and, as the work of that team 
evolves, it will likely make more sense to have it look at issues 
related to the teaching of students with disabilities and English 
language learners than to establish a separate coordination body 
focused narrowly on that area. We revised our report to reflect 
Education's new Recovery Act coordination efforts. Education also 
provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report as 
appropriate. 

As we indicated in our conclusions, we believe that more systematic 
departmentwide coordination is warranted at this time for several 
reasons, including the new focus through HEOA on preparing prospective 
teachers for these students and new Recovery Act funding available to 
states and school districts. However, we do not specify the particular 
method by which Education should address this issue. Education should 
use its knowledge of past efforts and existing barriers to explore 
various mechanisms for sharing expertise and information among relevant 
offices. For example, these could include building upon existing 
efforts, as Education noted regarding its Recovery Act coordination 
efforts, or exploring new ways to bring people together through 
electronic means or in communities of practice that facilitate sharing 
of expertise and information. In addition, Education could consider 
identifying any specific legislative requirements and other potential 
impediments to coordination and develop a strategy for addressing them. 
A key component of any coordination mechanism, as we also noted in our 
conclusions, is that the coordination effort should come from 
Education's leadership to ensure support and help it endure. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
after its issue date. At that time we will send copies of this report 
to the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, and 
other interested parties. In addition, this report will also be 
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in 
appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our review focused on (1) the extent to which teacher preparation 
programs require preparation for general classroom teachers to instruct 
students with disabilities and English language learners and the 
challenges these programs face; (2) the role selected states play in 
preparing general classroom teachers to instruct students with 
disabilities and English language learners and their challenges; and 
(3) funding and other assistance the U.S. Department of Education 
(Education) provides to states and teacher preparation programs to help 
prepare general classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups. 
For the purposes of this engagement, we defined general classroom 
teacher as a nonspecialist teacher of the general education curriculum 
in a mainstream classroom; we did not include special education 
teachers or English as a second language teachers within the scope of 
our research. 

Survey of Teacher Preparation Programs at Institutions of Higher 
Education: 

We designed and implemented a Web-based survey to gather information on 
the extent to which teacher preparation programs administered by 
institutions of higher education require preparation for general 
classroom teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English 
language learners. The population from which we drew our sample 
consisted of the institutions of higher education in the 50 states and 
the District of Columbia. We identified these institutions from a list 
of teacher preparation programs that report annually to their state 
educational agencies, as required by the Higher Education Act (HEA). We 
obtained the list from Education's Office of Postsecondary Education 
(OPE) and supplemented the information with data obtained from state 
officials. We assessed the reliability of these data and found them to 
be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Our survey was directed to 
deans or chairs of colleges or departments of education. 

Process for Developing the Survey Instrument: 

To develop survey questions, we reviewed existing studies and other 
resources on preservice preparation for general classroom teachers to 
instruct students with disabilities and English language learners. We 
also conducted interviews with faculty members from institutions of 
higher education with expertise on these issues and officials from 
national membership and accreditation entities for teacher preparation 
programs to develop an understanding of the curriculum structure for 
prospective elementary and secondary teachers enrolled in traditional 
programs and alternative routes to certification offered by these 
institutions.[Footnote 43] Finally, we pretested various drafts of our 
questionnaire with deans and chairs of colleges and departments of 
education at eight institutions of higher education to help ensure that 
the questions were clear, the terms used were precise, the questions 
were unbiased, and that the questionnaire could be completed in a 
reasonable amount of time. We modified the questionnaire to incorporate 
findings from each pretest. 

Our survey questionnaire obtained information on required courses and 
field experiences, challenges facing programs in preparing general 
classroom teachers for these student subgroups, program improvements, 
and additional assistance received and needed in these areas. For the 
sections of our questionnaire pertaining to curricula requirements, we 
primarily focused on traditional programs offered by institutions of 
higher education that prepare elementary and secondary general 
classroom teachers. To a lesser extent, we also included questions on 
alternative routes to certification, which may also be offered by these 
institutions. All the institutions of higher education within our 
sample offered a traditional teacher preparation program for either 
prospective elementary or secondary teachers or both. In addition to 
traditional teacher preparation programs, these institutions may also 
administer alternative routes to certification, and table 4 provides 
estimates of the number of programs by type from institutions 
responding to our nationwide survey. Finally, given the variation in 
the types and structure of various teacher preparation programs, we 
only collected data on an institution's largest teacher preparation 
program for prospective elementary and secondary teachers, as well as 
their largest alternative route to certification program. We asked 
institutions to identify their largest programs as those with the 
highest number of program completers in the 2007-2008 academic year. 
[Footnote 44] 

Table 4: Characteristics of Teacher Preparation Programs at 
Institutions of Higher Education That Responded to GAO's Survey: 

Number of institutions; 
Traditional programs: Elementary: 296; 
Traditional programs: Secondary: 284; 
Alternative routes: 145. 

Percentage of total survey respondents (n = 303); 
Traditional programs: Elementary: 98.0%; 
Traditional programs: Secondary: 95.9%; 
Alternative routes: 50.5%. 

Source: GAO survey of teacher preparation programs. 

[End of table] 

Data Source for Survey of Institutions of Higher Education: 

To survey institutions of higher education that administer teacher 
preparation programs, we selected a probability sample of these 
institutions. The universe of institutions from which we drew our 
sample was a 2007 list of 1,344 traditional teacher preparation 
programs obtained from Education's OPE, which included all institutions 
of higher education that administer traditional teacher preparation 
programs reporting annually to their respective state, as required by 
Title II of HEA. Because OPE's list did not include programs from Iowa, 
Montana, and Nebraska, we interviewed state officials from these states 
and identified an additional 57 traditional programs for our sampling 
frame.[Footnote 45] To finalize our sampling frame from this list of 
data from OPE and state officials, we omitted programs that were 
outside the scope of our research.[Footnote 46] As a result, we had a 
sampling frame comprised of 1,272 institutions of higher education that 
offer traditional teacher preparation programs. From this list, which 
we sorted alphabetically by state, we drew a systematic random sample 
of 376 institutions to participate in our survey, and we eliminated two 
institutions from the sample because they did not meet the definition 
of a traditional teacher preparation program offered by an institution 
of higher education. 

Administration Method for Survey of Institutions of Higher Education: 

We conducted the survey using a Web-based, self-administered 
questionnaire. In the questionnaire, we asked the deans or chairs of 
colleges or departments of education to be the lead survey respondent 
and, if necessary, to confer with other faculty members within their 
institution to answer questions requiring more detailed knowledge. We 
collected contact information for these institutions by cross- 
referencing the list of institutions with a list obtained from a 
national accreditation entity for teacher preparation programs and 
through searches of these institutions' Web sites. Through e-mails and 
phone contacts, we verified the contact information provided from these 
resources. We sent e-mail notifications to these officials beginning on 
September 30, 2008. To encourage them to respond, we sent four follow- 
up e-mails over a period of about 8 weeks. During this time, staff and 
contractors made phone calls to encourage those who did not respond to 
complete our questionnaire. In all, 303 institutions of higher 
education completed the survey for a response rate of 81 percent. We 
performed a nonresponse analysis and found no evidence of a significant 
potential for nonresponse bias in our survey results. Thus, our 
response rate for this survey allowed us to generalize our survey 
results to the population of teacher preparation programs administrated 
by institutions of higher education. 

Possible Errors Inherent in Probability Samples: 

Survey results based on probability samples are subject to sampling 
error. The sample we drew for our survey is only one of a large number 
of samples we might have drawn. Because different samples could have 
provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the 
precision of our particular sample results as a 95 percent confidence 
interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population 
values for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, 
we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in 
this report will include the true values in the study population. 
Unless otherwise noted, the margin of error associated with the 
confidence intervals of our survey estimates is no more than plus or 
minus 6 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. 

Efforts to Minimize Nonsampling Errors: 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce 
other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 
example, difficulties in the way a particular question is interpreted, 
in the sources of information that are available to respondents, or in 
the way the data are entered into the database or were analyzed can 
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps 
in the development of this questionnaire, in the data collection, and 
in the data analysis to minimize such errors. Specifically, a survey 
specialist designed the questionnaire in collaboration with staff who 
have subject matter expertise. Then, as previously mentioned, the draft 
questionnaire was pretested with eight institutions of higher education 
to ensure that questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to 
comprehend. The questionnaire was also reviewed by an additional survey 
specialist and five external experts in the fields of teacher 
preparation, English language acquisition, and special education. Data 
analysis was conducted by a data analyst working directly with staff 
who have subject matter expertise. When the data were analyzed, a 
second independent data analyst checked all computer programs for 
accuracy. Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their 
answers directly into the electronic questionnaires. This eliminated 
the need to have the data keyed into databases, thus removing an 
additional source of error. 

Site Visits to Selected States and School Districts: 

To understand the role of selected states in preparing both prospective 
and practicing teachers to work with students with disabilities and 
English language learners, we interviewed state and local officials in 
four states--California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas. We selected 
states that met a range of conditions, primarily focusing on states 
either with a high concentration of the population ages 5 to 21 years 
who speak English "less than very well" or that experienced growth in 
this population ages 5 to 17 years from 1990 and 2000, as well as 
geographic diversity. In addition, we took into consideration states 
with higher-than-average percentages of students with disabilities 
served under IDEA, Part B who spent more than 80 percent of their day 
in a general education classroom. During our site visits, we 
interviewed officials at state educational agencies, state agencies for 
higher education, and school districts, as well as principals and 
teachers, in these four states to understand the extent to which 
federal funding was used to support teacher preparation for instructing 
these student subgroups, the challenges they faced in ensuring that 
teachers are prepared to work with these students, and assistance 
Education provided to support teachers in instructing these students in 
mainstream classrooms. 

Within our four selected states, we identified two school districts, or 
local educational agencies, for site visits (see table 5). To identify 
school districts for site visits, we focused on sites that had (1) 
partnerships with institutions of higher education as part of 
discretionary grants under Titles II and III of ESEA and Title II of 
HEA and (2) percentages of at least one of the student subgroups that 
were higher than the average for the state. In addition, we worked to 
get a range of urban and rural locations and also took into 
consideration the size of the district, amount of federal formula grant 
funding, and recommendations from state officials of districts with 
high or growing concentrations of English language learners. We visited 
one or two individual schools in each district at the elementary and 
secondary levels that either partnered with an institution of higher 
education as part of an Education grant-funded project or was 
recommended by school district officials. Using a standard set of 
questions, we asked district officials and school administrators about 
their use of federal funds, challenges in ensuring that teachers are 
equipped to instruct these students, and assistance needed and received 
from state agencies and Education. In addition, we gained insight from 
teachers working with these students by learning about their preservice 
and in-service training in relation to their on-the-job experiences. 

Table 5: School Districts GAO Visited in Four Selected States: 

School district: Los Angeles Unified School District; 
Location: Los Angeles, California. 

School district: New Hope Elementary School District; 
Location: Thornton, California. 

School district: Gwinnett County Public Schools; 
Location: Suwanee, Georgia. 

School district: Houston County Schools; 
Location: Perry, Georgia. 

School district: Lexington Public Schools; 
Location: Lexington, Nebraska. 

School district: Lincoln Public Schools; 
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska. 

School district: Austin Independent School 
District; Location: Austin, Texas. 

School district: Canutillo Independent School 
District; Location: El Paso, Texas. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Analysis of Education's Survey Data: 

To provide additional information from state and local educational 
officials on a national scale, including teachers, we analyzed 
nationally representative survey data collected by Education through 
its National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and 
State Survey on the Implementation of No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). 
The NLS-NCLB data are from a nationally representative survey of 
teachers, as well as of schools and school districts. The SSI-NCLB data 
are from surveys of state Title I and III Directors. We assessed the 
reliability of the NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB methodologies by (1) reviewing 
existing information and documentation about the survey data and (2) 
interviewing an agency official knowledgeable about the data. We found 
both of these surveys and methodologies to conform to generally 
accepted social science research standards. 

Review of Education-Funded Grant Programs, Research, and Technical 
Assistance: 

To review relevant funding and other assistance provided by Education, 
we first compiled a list of major federal grant programs from the 2008 
Guide to U.S. Department of Education Programs that can be used to 
prepare general classroom teachers to work with these student 
subgroups. For each program, we reviewed what is known about how much 
of the funding was used to prepare general classroom teachers, 
statutory requirements, and performance goals. Based on this review, we 
talked with Education officials from various divisions, including the 
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), the Office of 
English Language Acquisition (OELA), OPE, and the Office of Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), to confirm that we had 
identified the key programs that can be used to support teacher 
preparation for these student subgroups. In addition, we reviewed laws, 
regulations, and documents relevant to the 10 Education grant programs 
we identified. Due to our focus on Education's key grants and providers 
of research and technical assistance, there may be other programs and 
Education-supported entities that we did not identify that could be 
used to support the preparation and ongoing training of general 
classroom teachers for these student subgroups. 

To understand how the department provides other assistance to help 
prepare teachers for instructing both student subgroups, we interviewed 
officials from selected regional and national Education-funded research 
and technical assistance providers (see appendices II and III). To 
identify relevant research and technical assistance provided by 
Education, we identified a list of the key regional and national 
providers that receive funding and are overseen by various program 
offices departmentwide. We augmented our understanding of these 
providers by reviewing information from previous GAO reports; 
interviews with experts, state education officials, and school district 
officials; and the Web sites of the providers that were most relevant 
to our review. 

Of the universe of approximately 100 national and regional providers we 
initially identified, we selected 15 regional and 11 national providers 
to interview, each of which had a major focus on either students with 
disabilities or English language learners or both or a major focus on 
teacher preparation. In selecting providers for these interviews, we 
worked to achieve a balance of providers that focus on each subgroup 
and, to the extent possible, providers that either had a focus on 
assisting prospective or practicing teachers or both.[Footnote 47] We 
also interviewed officials from four types of regional research and 
technical assistance providers that receive Education funding: (1) 
Regional Comprehensive Centers, (2) Regional Equity Assistance Centers, 
(3) Regional Educational Laboratories, and (4) Regional Resource 
Centers. From among the regional providers, we interviewed officials 
from these entities that served our four selected states for a total of 
15 interviews.[Footnote 48] We used a standard set of questions to ask 
about the extent to which national and regional providers provide 
assistance for prospective and practicing general classroom teachers on 
instructing students with disabilities and English language learners, 
the types of entities that access this information, and coordination 
with other Education-supported providers of research and technical 
assistance. We also collected and analyzed relevant documentation, such 
as requests for applications and statements of work. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Education-Funded Regional Research and Technical 
Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed: 

As shown in table 6, we identified four types of regional research and 
technical assistance providers--supported by three Education offices-- 
that can assist states and school districts in preparing general 
classroom teachers to instruct either students with disabilities or 
English language learners or both student subgroups through a variety 
of means. We conducted interviews with officials from each of the 15 
Education-funded regional research and technical assistance centers 
that serve the four states we visited, comprising four of each type of 
center, with one exception. We interviewed only three regional resource 
centers, as one regional resource center served two of our selected 
states. 

Table 6: Selected Regional-Level Research and Technical Assistance 
Providers: 

Center: Regional Resource Centers (6 centers); 
Group served: Students with disabilities; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Target audience: States; 
Resources/assistance offered: Assistance to states in developing and 
implementing state improvement plans for students with disabilities. 

Center: Regional Comprehensive Centers (16 centers); 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: OESE; 
Target audience: States; 
Resources/assistance offered: Assistance to state educational agencies; 
leadership programs; and dissemination of research and best practices. 

Center: Regional Equity Assistance Centers (10 centers); 
Group served: English language learners; 
Education office: OESE; 
Target audience: States, school districts; 
Resources/assistance offered: Professional development; assistance 
developing and implementing equity programs; information on legal 
issues regarding equity. 

Center: Regional Educational Laboratories (10 centers); 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: Institute of Education Sciences (IES); 
Target audience: States, school districts; 
Resources/assistance offered: Research on increasing achievement for 
students with disabilities and English language learners; expert-led 
seminars for educators. 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation and interviews with 
agency officials. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Education-Funded National Research and Technical 
Assistance Providers GAO Interviewed: 

National-level research and technical assistance providers, supported 
by five Education offices, help states, school districts, teachers, and 
parents with a variety of topics related to either students with 
disabilities or English language learners or both student subgroups. We 
conducted interviews with officials from the following Education-funded 
national research and technical assistance centers, as shown in table 
7. 

Table 7: Selected National-Level Research and Technical Assistance 
Providers: 

Center: National Center on Response to Intervention; 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Target audience: States; 
Resources/assistance offered: Assistance on development and 
implementation of Response to Intervention policies for states; public 
access to information about Response to Intervention. 

Center: IDEA Partnership; 
Group served: Students with disabilities; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Target audience: School districts, teachers, administrators, teacher 
preparation programs; 
Resources/assistance offered: Teaching and reference materials; 
facilitated dialogue among stakeholders. 

Center: National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities; 
Group served: Students with disabilities; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Target audience: National-level assistance centers, schools, teachers, 
families; 
Resources/assistance offered: Teaching and reference materials; 
dissemination of existing materials. 

Center: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition; 
Group served: English language learners; 
Education office: OELA; 
Target audience: States; 
Resources/assistance offered: Research on increasing achievement for 
English language learners; resource guides for teachers. 

Center: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching 
of English Language Learners; 
Group served: English language learners; 
Education office: IES; 
Target audience: Researchers, administrators, teachers; 
Resources/assistance offered: Professional development for practicing 
teachers; Internet seminars for educators. 

Center: National High School Center; 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: OESE/OSERS; 
Target audience: Regional comprehensive centers; 
Resources/assistance offered: Information on high school issues; 
Internet seminars. 

Center: What Works Clearinghouse; 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: IES; 
Target audience: States, administrators, teachers, parents; 
Resources/assistance offered: Practice guides for teachers; assessment 
of education research. 

Center: Doing What Works; 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: OPEPD; 
Target audience: Teachers; 
Resources/assistance offered: Teaching strategies. 

Center: IRIS Center for Training Enhancements; 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: OSERS; 
Target audience: Teacher preparation programs, states, school 
districts, teachers; 
Resources/assistance offered: Online video examples of strategies for 
teachers; case studies. 

Center: Center on Instruction; 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: OESE/OSERS; 
Target audience: 
Regional comprehensive centers; Resources/assistance offered: 
Professional development materials; research-based information. 

Center: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality; 
Group served: Both; 
Education office: OESE/OSERS; 
Target audience: 
Regional comprehensive centers; Resources/assistance offered: Teaching 
strategies; research and policy information. 

Sources: GAO analysis of Education documentation and interviews with 
agency officials. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education: 

United States Department Of Education: 
Washington, DC 20202: 
[hyperlink, http://www.ed.gov] 

"The Department of Education's Mission is promote student achievement 
and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational 
excellence and ensuring equal access." 

June 19, 2009: 

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

I am writing in response to the recommendation made in the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Teacher Preparation: 
Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher Preparation for 
Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, 
but Systematic Department-wide Coordination Could Enhance this 
Assistance" (GAO-09-573). 

This report had one recommendation for the Secretary of Education. 
Following is the Department's response. 

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of Education develop 
and implement a department-wide mechanism to ensure more systematic 
coordination among Education's offices that oversee grant programs, 
research, and technical assistance that can help prospective and 
practicing teachers to instruct students with disabilities and English 
language learners in the general classroom. 

Response: The Department agrees that coordination is beneficial and 
will explore the benefits of creating such a mechanism. However, to the 
extent that the report suggests the creation of a permanent Department-
wide committee, the Department's experience indicates that creating 
intradepartmental committees for the sole purpose of coordinating 
agency activities or sharing information across offices is not always 
useful. While the Department will review the advisability of forming a 
cross-program committee, it would first want to ensure that such a 
group would truly lead to improvements in the way the Department and 
its grantees implement programs that promote teacher quality. 

The Department has effectively brought together individuals from 
different offices to work together 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 Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, 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 activities 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. 
One team led by the Secretary's advisors on teacher issues and made up 
of representatives from several program offices, focuses on teachers 
and school leadership. As the work of that team evolves, it will likely 
make more sense to have it look at issues related to the teaching of 
students with disabilities and English language learners than to 
establish a separate coordination body focused narrowly on that area. 

Efforts to coordinate programs, research, and technical assistance 
efforts cannot fully eliminate barriers to alignment. Individual 
programs and technical assistance efforts have legislative 
requirements, and some of these will, inevitably, run counter to one 
another. While increased internal coordination may alleviate some 
problems, it is unlikely to completely resolve them. 

The enclosed document includes the Department's suggested technical 
changes to the report. 

We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments on the draft 
report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Joseph C. Conaty: 
Delegated Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Gale Harris (Assistant Director) and Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in- 
Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Miriam Hill, Heddi 
Nieuwsma, and Melissa Swearingen made significant contributions to this 
report in all aspects of the work. Marisa London also made 
contributions to the report. Kate van Gelder contributed to writing 
this report; Carolyn Boyce, Justin Fisher, Stuart Kaufman, and Shana 
Wallace provided key technical support; and Jessica Botsford provided 
legal support. Mimi Nguyen and Jeremy Sebest developed the graphics for 
the report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Students with disabilities refers to children served under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A child with a 
disability means a child evaluated as having mental retardation, a 
hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language 
impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious 
emotional disturbance, an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic 
brain injury, another health impairment, a specific learning 
disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by 
reason thereof, needs special education and related services. The term 
"English language learners" is commonly used to refer to students who 
have limited English proficiency. The No Child Left Behind Act uses the 
term "limited English proficient" in the text of the legislation. 
Throughout this report, we will use the term English language learners 
to refer to students who are limited English proficient. 

[2] NCLBA (Pub. L. No. 107-110), which amended and reauthorized ESEA 
(20 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq.), introduced the requirement that states 
develop plans that include academic standards and establish performance 
goals for making adequate yearly progress that would lead to 100 
percent of their students being proficient in reading, mathematics, and 
science by 2014. Each school's assessment data must be disaggregated in 
order to compare the achievement levels of students within certain 
designated groups, which include students with disabilities and English 
language learners, with the state's proficiency targets. Each of these 
groups generally must make adequate yearly progress in order for the 
school to make adequate yearly progress. 

[3] See National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public 
Agenda, Lessons Learned: New Teachers Talk About Their Jobs, Challenges 
and Long-Range Plans - Issue No. 3: Teaching in Changing Times 
(Naperville, IL, 2008). 

[4] The Higher Education Act was reauthorized and amended by the Higher 
Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), Pub. L. No. 110-315, August 14, 2008. 

[5] IDEA, Part B requires that students with disabilities ages 3 to 21 
years, to the extent possible, be provided instruction in educational 
settings in the least restrictive environment, such as mainstream 
classrooms. 

[6] See M. Planty, W. Hussar, T. Snyder, S. Provasnik, G. Kena, R. 
Dinkes, A. KewalRamani, and J. Kemp, The Condition of Education 2008, 
NCES 2008-031, a report by the National Center for Education 
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 
Education (Washington, D.C., 2008). Special education services through 
IDEA are available for eligible children and youth identified by a team 
of qualified professionals as having a disability that adversely 
affects their academic performance and as in need of special education 
and related services. 

[7] Data Accountability Center, Table 1-3: Students ages 6 through 21 
served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state: Fall 2007, 
[hyperlink, https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-3.htm] (accessed 
on Jun. 29, 2009). 

[8] Data Accountability Center, Table 1-15: Students ages 6 through 21 
served under IDEA, Part B, as a percentage of population, by disability 
and state: Fall 2007, [hyperlink, 
https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-15.htm] (accessed on Jun. 29, 
2009). 

[9] The Data Accountability Center receives funding through a 
cooperative agreement with Education's Office of Special Education 
Programs. 

[10] Pub. L. No. 108-446, December 3, 2004. 

[11] Each public school child who receives special education and 
related services must have an individualized education program (IEP), 
which is a written statement specifying, among other components, the 
goals and objectives for the student, the services that a student will 
receive, the extent to which the student will participate in the 
regular education setting with nondisabled peers, and how the student 
will participate in statewide assessments. 

[12] Data Accountability Center, Table 2-2: Students ages 6 through 21 
served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category, educational 
environment and state: Fall 2007, [hyperlink, 
https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_2-2.xls] (accessed on Apr. 7, 
2009). 

[13] See Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, 
and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, 
Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III 
State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2004-06 (Washington, D.C., 
2008). 

[14] See Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, 
and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, 
Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III 
State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2004-06. 

[15] Alternative routes to certification are gaining in popularity. 
According to the most recent available state-reported data submitted to 
Education, from 2000 to 2004, the number of individuals who completed 
alternative routes to certification programs increased by almost 40 
percent. See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary 
Education, The Secretary's Fifth Annual Report on Teacher Quality: A 
Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom (Washington, D.C., 2006). 

[16] Regional educational service centers are state and federally 
supported centers disbursed across different geographic regions 
designed to improve the educational effectiveness of their member 
school systems by sharing services, gathering and disseminating 
teaching tools, and providing training to teachers on issues that arise 
within their particular school districts. 

[17] These states were Alaska, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North 
Carolina, Virginia, and Wyoming. See U.S. Department of Education, 
Office of Postsecondary Education, The Secretary's Fifth Annual Report 
on Teacher Quality: A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom. 

[18] Formula grant programs are noncompetitive awards based on a 
predetermined formula. The eligible recipients for Education's formula 
grant programs are state educational agencies that then pass much of 
the funding through to local educational agencies. Competitive, or 
discretionary, grants are awarded on the basis of a competitive 
process. Education reviews applications based on established criteria 
to determine which applications best address the program requirements. 

[19] The other two subgroups include students who are economically 
disadvantaged and students who represent major racial and ethnic 
groups. 

[20] Schools must show that at least 95 percent of students in each 
designated student group participated in these assessments. 

[21] 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 

[22] 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. 

[23] Section 205 of HEA, as added by Section 201 of the HEOA, Pub. L. 
No. 110-315 requires annual submission of three types of reports on 
teacher preparation and qualifications: (1) a report from institutions 
of higher education to states, (2) a report from states to the 
Secretary of Education, and (3) a report from the Secretary of 
Education to Congress and the public. 

[24] Pub. L. No. 107-279. 

[25] Pub. L. No. 111-5. 

[26] See GAO, Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States 
and Localities, Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is 
Essential, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-580] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2009). 

[27] All estimates based on our sample are subject to sampling error. 
We surveyed 374 institutions of higher education that offer teacher 
preparation programs and had an 81 percent response rate. Unless 
otherwise noted, the margin of error for questions answered by these 
institutions is no more than plus or minus 6 percentage points at the 
95 percent level of confidence. For more detailed information on this 
survey, please see appendix I. 

[28] The majority of teacher education institutions in 31 states have 
received accreditation from the National Council for the Accreditation 
of Teacher Education, and 39 states have adopted or adapted this 
entity's standards for approval of their teacher preparation programs. 
The six key components include (1) candidate knowledge, skills, and 
professional dispositions; (2) assessment system and unit evaluation; 
(3) field experiences and clinical practices; (4) diversity; (5) 
faculty qualifications, performance, and development; and (6) unit 
governance and resources. Recognizing changes in the nation's student 
population and the need for all teachers to have awareness of these 
student subgroups, the National Council for the Accreditation of 
Teacher Education revised its standards in 2008 to recommend field 
experiences that expose teacher candidates to students with 
disabilities and students with linguistic diversity. 

[29] Currently, Texas does not specify what topics on students with 
disabilities must be covered by teacher preparation programs. However, 
one senior official said that a new bill in the Texas House of 
Representatives (H.B. 3421) would set specific requirements for 
students with disabilities. 

[30] As of April 24, 2009, the Texas legislature was considering a bill 
that related to requiring teacher preparation programs to provide 
coursework on English language learners. 

[31] According to state officials, 16 percent of general classroom 
teachers in Texas had their endorsement (as of January 2009), 7 percent 
of general classroom teachers in Nebraska had their endorsement (as of 
August 2008), and 5 percent of general classroom teachers in Georgia 
had their endorsement (as of October 2008). Senior officials told us 
that California did offer an endorsement prior to requiring teacher 
preparation programs to provide coursework and fieldwork on instructing 
English language learners. As a result of these requirements, only 
veteran teachers and teachers trained outside the state who have not 
received instruction on English language learners must get their 
endorsement. 

[32] States reported that some of these initiatives were funded through 
IDEA and ESEA Title II state set-aside funds. State set-aside funds are 
a small percentage of these large formula grant programs that are meant 
to be used for statewide initiatives, whereas most of the funds from 
these programs pass through states to local educational agencies. 

[33] The survey data do not specify to what extent the professional 
development was provided to general classroom teachers. See U.S. 
Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local 
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III-- 
Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report (Washington, D.C., 2007). 

[34] State officials reported that this effort was funded through ESEA 
Title II state set-aside funding. 

[35] See U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation 
and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and 
Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III-- 
Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report. 

[36] The survey data do not specify to what extent the professional 
development was provided to general classroom teachers. See U.S. 
Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, State and Local 
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III-- 
Accountability Under NCLB: Interim Report. 

[37] In each state, we visited two school districts. The districts, 
within each state, had large differences in the size of their student 
body, with one being classified by us as small and one being classified 
as large. 

[38] Three of the six offices oversee grant programs, as well as 
regional or national research and technical assistance providers. Two 
offices oversee regional or national research and technical assistance 
providers, but no grant programs. One office oversees a grant program, 
but no regional or national research and technical assistance 
providers. 

[39] In this report, we focus on grant programs that either require or 
allow grantees to use some of the funds to help general classroom 
teachers instruct students with disabilities and English language 
learners. 

[40] See GAO, Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education 
Programs Could Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-593] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 6, 2009). 

[41] See GAO, Managing for Results: Building on Agencies' Strategic 
Plans to Improve Federal Management, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-29] (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct. 30, 1997). 

[42] See GAO, Results Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help 
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[43] Our survey only included alternative routes to certification 
administered by institutions of higher education. We did not include 
alternative routes to certification offered by other entities, such as 
state educational agencies, school districts, regional educational 
service centers, and other organizations. 

[44] A program completer is an individual who has completed all the 
requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program and is 
documented as having fulfilled these requirements. 

[45] OPE's list does not include state-approved programs from Iowa, 
Montana, and Nebraska because these states did not report the number of 
program completers annually to OPE in 2007. In addition, these states 
did not require teacher candidates to take assessments to earn 
certification and thus did not calculate pass rates. 

[46] We omitted programs with less than 10 program completers because 
OPE does not consistently report pass rates for these programs. In 
addition, we did not include programs located in Guam, the Virgin 
Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico. 

[47] For those centers with a focus on students with disabilities, we 
used a secondary criterion to select those that did not specialize in a 
particular disability area (e.g., autism) and instead selected centers 
that focused more generally on all students with disabilities. 

[48] The number of interviews conducted does not total 16 because the 
Southeast Regional Resource Center serves as the regional provider for 
two of our four selected states: Georgia and Texas. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: