States  have discretion in how they conduct oversight of TPP quality, by, for  example: defining the types of TPPs that may operate in the state, such as  undergraduate or post-baccalaureate TPPs, or alternative route TPPs;  reviewing and approving individual TPPs to operate and periodically  assessing them for renewal; assessing whether any TPPs in the state are low-performing, as  required under the Higher Education Act, using criteria of the state’s  choosing; and,  setting licensing requirements that teaching candidates must satisfy  that often include completing an approved TPP and passing licensing  tests that assess subject-matter knowledge or other skills. States Assessed TPPs before Approving Them to Prepare Teachers but Some States Reported Not Having a Process to Identify Low-Performing TPPs as Required by Statute

		Almost All States Assessed TPP Program Design and Information about Candidates and More Than Half Assessed TPPs Based on Graduates’ Effectiveness

All states reported that they review traditional TPPs before approving  them to prepare new teachers and may renew approval on a periodic  basis. However, officials from seven states reported in our survey that  they did not have a process for identifying low-performing TPPs in  academic year 2014-2015. In response to our follow-up inquiries, state officials who reported not  having a process in our survey told us they believed their other oversight  procedures are sufficient to ensure quality without having a process to  identify low-performing TPPs or that they were in the middle of changing  their state’s process for identifying low-performing TPPs, among other  reasons. According to Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government, an agency’s management should provide  reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable laws and  regulations. This may impact  the quality of training provided to new teachers and result in their being  inadequately prepared to educate children. Apart from offering information, most states reported that they modified  their oversight activities to verify that TPPs were aligning with new K-12  standards. To Varying Degrees, Select TPPs Took Steps to Incorporate New K-12 Standards

All 14 TPPs we interviewed made changes that ranged from large-scale  reforms to more modest modifications.the following three categories: (1) increasing subject-matter knowledge,  (2) modifying coursework related to teaching techniques, and (3) using  classroom training to provide real world experience. However, Education also noted in the preamble to  its December 2014 proposed rule that “data that are collected and  reported have not led to an identification of significant improvements in  teacher preparation program performance in part because the data are  not based on meaningful indicators of program effectiveness.”  Education officials told us they have not conducted a study to inform  Congress or the agency about whether any current reporting  requirements are not useful. Education Has Taken Few Steps to Share Information about Teacher Preparation Program Quality Internally and with States

Education has made few efforts to share expertise about TPP quality  among its offices. However, the  agency does not have mechanisms in place to promote regular, sustained  information-sharing among these offices. Furthermore, Education’s efforts to support or enhance TPP quality reach  a limited number of states. However, in our survey, only about  one third of states reported receiving information from Education about  TPP oversight or enhancing TPP quality, and about half of all states said  they would like additional support from Education on this topic. Gaps in the agency’s efforts to  disseminate information result from information- sharing being left to  individual offices’ initiative rather than an agency-wide mechanism, and  Education officials noted that more could be done to share information  with states and other stakeholders. Federal internal  controls standards emphasize the importance of agencies ensuring  adequate information-sharing with key stakeholders. Without such an  approach, Education may be missing opportunities to support state efforts  to enhance TPP quality. For example, states may be unaware of  information about good practices for TPP quality that could assist them in  their oversight. The recent shift to college- and career- ready K-12 standards further highlights the importance of such programs. Finally,  without increasing information-sharing within the Department and with  states, Education may miss opportunities to disseminate information that  could enhance TPP quality. Education agreed with our four recommendations. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this study were to answer the following questions: (1)  How do states oversee teacher preparation programs (TPP); (2) What are  states and select TPPs doing to prepare new teachers for new K-12  standards; and (3) To what extent does the U.S. Department of  Education’s (Education) data reporting and other information-sharing  support and encourage high quality TPPs? We  reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; federal internal controls  standards; and leading practices for program management. Survey of 50 States and the District of Columbia

To identify how states oversee TPPs, modified their practices in response  to new K-12 standards, and used Higher Education Act Title II data and  Department of Education information about TPPs, we surveyed state  oversight entities from all 50 states and the District of Columbia,  achieving a 100 percent response rate. We interviewed Education officials and  contractors responsible for collecting, analyzing and reporting such data.
Why GAO Did This Study

TPPs play a vital role in preparing teachers, including helping them teach to new K-12 college- and career-ready standards recently adopted or under development in all states. Under Title II of the Higher Education Act, states collect information on TPPs and report it to Education, which reports it to the public. Education also administers competitive grant programs related to teacher preparation. In light of new K-12 standards and questions about TPP quality, GAO was asked to review TPP, state, and federal efforts.
This report examines: (1) state oversight activities, (2) state and TPP actions related to new K-12 standards, and (3) the extent to which Education shares information about TPP quality. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and documents, surveyed all state oversight offices (with a 100 percent response rate), and interviewed Education officials and various stakeholders, as well as a non-generalizable sample of officials in five states with varied approaches to oversight and 14 TPPs in those states.

What GAO Found

State oversight officials reported that they approve teacher preparation programs (TPP) by assessing the quality of program design and analyzing candidate data such as program graduation rates, according to GAO’s 2014-2015 survey of states and the District of Columbia. However, some states reported that they do not assess whether TPPs are low-performing, as required by federal law. To receive funding under the Higher Education Act, states are required to conduct an assessment to identify TPPs that are low-performing. Seven states reported to GAO that they do not have a process to do so. State officials who reported not having a process in GAO’s survey cited several reasons including that they believed other oversight procedures were sufficient to ensure quality. Education officials told GAO they have not verified states’ processes to identify low-performing TPPs. In accordance with federal internal control standards, Education should provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable laws. If states fail to assess whether TPPs are low-performing, potential teaching candidates may have difficulty identifying low-performing TPPs. This could result in teachers who are not fully prepared to educate children.
Officials in most surveyed states and all 14 of the TPPs GAO interviewed reported making changes to prepare teaching candidates for new state K-12 standards. Thirty-seven states reported providing TPPs with guidance about the new standards and a similar number of states reported adjusting their process for approving TPPs. Most states also required prospective teachers to pass licensing tests that have been modified in response to the new standards. Officials from all of the 14 TPPs GAO interviewed reported making changes that generally fell within the following three categories: (1) increasing subject-matter knowledge of teachers, (2) modifying coursework related to teaching techniques, and (3) using classroom training to provide real world experience.
Education missed opportunities to share information about TPP quality internally and with state oversight entities. Federal internal controls standards highlight the value of effective information-sharing with internal and external stakeholders. However, Education does not have mechanisms in place to promote regular, sustained information-sharing among its various program offices that support TPP quality because the workgroup that used to facilitate such information-sharing was discontinued. Without such a mechanism, Education cannot fully leverage information about TPP quality gathered by its various programs. Furthermore, Education's current efforts to share information about TPP quality with states only reach about a third of states, according to GAO's survey, although about half of all states reported that they wanted more of such information. Gaps in the agency's efforts to disseminate information result from information-sharing being left to individual offices' initiative rather than an agency-wide mechanism. Education officials acknowledged that more could be done to share information with states and other stakeholders. Without such efforts, Education may miss opportunities to support state efforts to improve TPP quality. For example, states may be unaware of good practices identified by Education that could assist them in their oversight.

What GAO Recommends

Among other things, GAO recommends that Education monitor states to ensure their compliance with requirements to assess whether any TPPs are low-performing and develop mechanisms to share information about TPP quality within the agency and with states. Education agreed with our recommendations.