With the passage  of the No Child Left Behind Act, on January 8, 2002, the federal  government intensified its focus on teacher quality by establishing a  requirement in the act for teachers across the nation to be “highly  qualified” in every core subject they teach by the end of the 2005-06 school  year. While the act contains specific criteria for highly qualified teachers by  grade and experience levels, in general, the act requires that teachers:   (1) have a bachelor’s degree, (2) have state certification, and   (3) demonstrate subject area knowledge for each core subject they teach. II and III for state and district authorized  activities.) All state officials said they did not know the  criteria for some of their teachers because Education’s draft guidance  changed and was not complete. Officials also did not have all the  information they needed to develop methods to evaluate subject area  knowledge for their current teachers. In written comments to our survey, for example, one official said,  “Questions  are impossible to answer at this  point because we not have finished the identification of those who need to  be tested or evaluated.” Another respondent wrote that the data system  “was designed years ago for state certification purposes… has not yet  been updated to include all NCLBA criteria for teachers.” Other state  officials also told us during our visits and through survey comments that  their state certifications did not always require teachers to demonstrate  subject area knowledge, so they did not have information on many  teachers’ qualifications for this criteria. State and District Officials Reported Many Conditions as Hindrances to Meeting the Law

Many state officials responding to our survey reported that teacher salary  issues and teacher shortages were hindrances. District officials also cited teacher salary and teacher development issues  as conditions that hindered them. Our district survey also shows that  significantly more high-poverty districts reported some conditions as  hindrances than low-poverty districts, and rural districts officials we  visited cited hindrances specific to their small size and isolated locations. These issues included low salaries, lack of incentive pay  programs, and a lack of career ladders for teachers. Many  of the hindrances that state and district officials reported related to  conditions that they could address such as teachers’ salaries, the number  of alternative certification programs, and certification requirements. To Help Teachers Meet the Requirement States Planned to Spend Most Title II Funds on Professional Development Activities, and Districts Will Spend Most on Recruitment and Retention Activities

To help meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers, state officials  planned to spend most of their Title II funds on professional development  activities, and district officials planned to spend a majority of their Title II  funds on recruitment and retention activities. Districts Planned to Spend Larger Amounts of Other Funds and Title II Funds Are a Larger Percentage of Total for High-Poverty Districts

From our survey, we estimated all districts planned to spend much larger  percentages of other federal, state, and local funds than Title II funds on  authorized activities but in high-poverty districts the share of the funds  was lower. Recommendation for Executive Action

In order to assist states’ efforts to determine the number of highly qualified  teachers they have and the actions they need to take to meet the  requirement for highly qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-06 school  year, we recommend that the Secretary of Education provide more  information to states. From this, we identified a population of 14,503 school districts in the  50 states and the District of Columbia. Estimates.
Why GAO Did This Study

In December 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). The act required that all teachers of core subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year and provided funding to help states and districts meet the requirement. In general, the act requires that teachers have a bachelor's degree, meet full state certification, and demonstrate subject area knowledge for every core subject they teach. This report focuses on the (1) number of teachers who met the highly qualified criteria during the 2002-03 school year, (2) conditions that hinder states' and districts' ability to meet the requirement, and (3) activities on which states and districts were planning to spend their Title II funds. GAO surveyed 50 states and the District of Columbia and a nationally representative sample of districts about their plans to implement the requirement. GAO also visited and interviewed officials in 8 states and 16 districts to discuss their efforts to implement the law.

What GAO Found

GAO could not develop reliable data on the number of highly qualified teachers because states did not have the information needed to determine whether all teachers met the criteria. Officials from 8 states visited said they did not have the information they needed to develop methods to evaluate current teachers' subject area knowledge and the criteria for some teachers were not issued until December 2002. Officials from 7 of 8 states visited said they did not have data systems that could track teacher qualifications for each core subject they teach. Both state and district officials cited many conditions in the GAO survey that hinder their ability to have all highly qualified teachers. State and district officials reported teacher pay issues, such as low salaries and lack of incentive pay, teacher shortages, and other issues as hindrances. GAO's survey estimates show that significantly more high-poverty than low-poverty districts reported hindrances, such as little support for new teachers. Rural district officials cited hindrances related to their size and isolated locations. State officials reported they needed assistance or information from Education, such as in developing incentives to teach in high-poverty schools, and Education's strategic plan addresses some of these needs. To help meet the requirement for highly qualified teachers, state survey respondents reported they planned to spend about 65 percent of their Title II funds on professional development activities authorized under Title II, and districts planned to spend an estimated 66 percent on recruitment and retention. Both state and district officials planned to spend much larger amounts of funds from sources other than Title II funds on such activities. High-poverty districts planned to spend more Title II funds on recruitment and retention than low-poverty districts. State and district officials visited said that most activities were a continuation of those begun previously.