Order Code RL31882
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants
(Title II, Part A of the Higher Education Act):
Overview and Reauthorization Issues
Updated October 31, 2005
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Bonnie F. Mangan
Technical Information Specialist
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants
(Title II, Part A of the Higher Education Act):
Overview and Reauthorization Issues
Summary
The Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program (Title II, Part A of the
Higher Education Act) seeks to improve K-12 teacher preparation programs at higher
education institutions. Although the Higher Education Act’s (HEA) authorities
expired during the 108th Congress, an extension through FY2005 was enacted (P.L.
108-366). The 109th Congress is currently considering legislation that would
reauthorize the HEA, including its Title II teacher provisions.
Title II Part A authorizes three types of competitively awarded grants — state
grants, partnership grants, and recruitment grants — with the annual appropriation
divided 45%, 45%, and 10% respectively among these kinds of grants. State grants
are one-time, three-year grants for such activities as holding teacher preparation
programs accountable for the quality of their graduates or reforming teacher
certification requirements. Partnership grants are one-time, five-year grants to
partnerships that must include at least three entities: an institution with a high
performing teacher preparation program, a school of arts and sciences, and a high
need school district. Among required uses are teacher preparation program
accountability and professional development. Recruitment grants are one-time,
three-year grants to states or partnerships, supporting scholarships with a teaching
service requirement or activities to recruit highly qualified teachers for high need
districts and schools.
States receiving HEA funds must report annually on the quality of teacher
preparation, including information on the pass rates of graduates on initial
certification assessments. Higher education institutions enrolling HEA-aided
students in their teacher preparation program must report annually detailing, among
other things, the certification exam pass rates of graduates. States must establish
procedures for identifying low-performing teacher preparation programs. If states
withdraw approval or funding due to this designation, the affected programs cannot
enroll students receiving HEA Title IV federal student aid.
During the HEA reauthorization process, grant-related issues may include
program effectiveness; mandated division of the annual appropriation when most
states have received these one-time only grants; and the mix of kinds of grants and
activities. Accountability issues may include inconsistency across states in standards
for identifying low-performing teacher preparation programs; effectiveness of pass
rate-based accountability for teacher preparation programs; reporting by states and
institutions of 100% pass rates; and possible alternatives to the current framework.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Teacher Preparation by Higher Education Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Federal Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Partnership Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Teacher Recruitment Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Additional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Implementation and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Programs — Accountability . . . . . . . 8
State Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Higher Education Institution Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Low-Performing Teacher Preparation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Secretary’s Annual Report on the Quality of Teacher Preparation . . . . 9
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Reauthorization Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Grant Program Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Effectiveness of the Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Funding Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Program and Activities Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Teacher Preparation Program Accountability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Identification of Teacher Preparation Programs as
Low-Performing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Effectiveness of Accountability Based on Pass Rates . . . . . . . . . 11
Calculation of Pass Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Legislative Activity in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
H.R. 609 and S. 1614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
General Features and Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Partnership Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Recruitment Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Accountability Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
Program, FY1999-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

---

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants
(Title II, Part A of the Higher Education Act):
Overview and Reauthorization Issues
Introduction
The 109th Congress is currently considering legislation that would reauthorize
the Higher Education Act (HEA), including its provisions in Title II addressing the
quality of the K-12 public school teaching force.1 The statutory authorities in the
HEA expired at the end of FY2004.2 Although an effort to reauthorize the HEA was
begun during the 108th Congress, it was not completed and an extension of the HEA
authorities through FY2005 was enacted (P.L. 108-366).
There is widespread awareness that the subject matter knowledge and teaching
skills of teachers play a central role in the success of elementary and secondary
education reform. Title II, Part A of the HEA includes programs and provisions
intended to improve the overall quality of the K-12 teacher preparation programs
currently administered by higher education institutions, hold these programs
accountable for the quality of their graduates, and strengthen recruitment of highly
qualified individuals to teaching.
This report provides an overview of the current programs and provisions of
HEA Title II, Part A, describes available information on their implementation, and
identifies a number of the key issues that may be part of a debate over the
reauthorization of this legislation. It also provides an overview of HEA
reauthorization legislation affecting Title II, Part A, that is under consideration in the
109th Congress. None of this legislation became law. The report begins with a
discussion of the broader context within which the reauthorization of HEA Title II,
Part A might occur.
Context
This section considers the current presence of higher education institutions in
the preparation of K-12 teachers, as well as the growing federal involvement in
activities designed to strengthen the quality of K-12 teaching.
1 For an overview of the issues surrounding teacher quality at the K-12 level, see CRS
Report RL30834, K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action, by James B.
Stedman. (Hereafter cited as CRS Report RL30834.)
2 For an overview of the HEA reauthorization, see CRS Report RL33040, The Higher
Education Act: Reauthorization Status and Issues, by Adam Stoll.

---

CRS-2
Teacher Preparation by Higher Education Institutions. Higher
education institutions are involved in multiple ways in preparing individuals to enter
K-12 teaching. Approximately 1,200 institutions of higher education award
undergraduate degrees in elementary and secondary education. In addition to earning
baccalaureate degrees in education, other undergraduates get ready to teach by
participating in a teacher education program while earning a degree in an academic
subject area. Still other individuals enter teaching through post-baccalaureate
certificate programs or master’s programs offered by higher education institutions.
Finally, alternative routes to teaching that target, for example, individuals changing
careers, may also involve higher education institutions.
The quality of higher education programs preparing K-12 teachers has been
sharply called into question over the past several years. Teacher preparation
programs have been criticized for providing prospective teachers with inadequate
time to learn subject matter and pedagogy; for teaching a superficial curriculum; for
being unduly fragmented, with courses not linked to practice teaching and with
education faculty isolated from their arts and sciences faculty colleagues; for
uninspired teaching; and for failing to prepare teachers to function in restructured or
technologically equipped classrooms.3
Most recently, critics have pointed to high rates of failure of recent graduates on
initial licensing or certification exams.4 One of the most publically reported
instances of high failure rates was in 1998 when 59% of prospective teachers in
Massachusetts failed that state’s new certification exam.5 The results were reported
by institution, prompting questions about the quality of the preparation and training
prospective teachers had received from those institutions with low pass rates.6
During the 1990s, other states, such as Texas and New York, began tracking the pass
rates of the graduates from their teacher preparation programs and sought to hold
those programs accountable for the performance of their graduates on licensing
exams.
Federal Involvement. The federal government ventured into this area as a
result of the reauthorization of the HEA in 1998. As will be explored in this report,
Title II of the HEA authorizes several programs targeting K-12 teacher preparation
3 National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, What Matters Most: Teaching
for America’s Future (Washington, DC, Sept. 1996), pp. 31-32.
4 The terms certification and licensure are often used interchangeably to refer to the
procedures and requirements established by states for granting the license to teach. They
are used interchangeably in this report.
5 See Kit Lively, “States Move to Toughen Standards for Teacher-Education Programs,” The
Chronicle of Higher Education, July 31, 1998.
6 The Massachusetts teacher exams have been widely analyzed and their quality debated.
See, for example, Walt Haney et al., “Less Truth Than Error? An Independent Study of the
Massachusetts Teacher Tests,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, Feb. 11, 1999, as
downloaded on Apr. 22, 2003, from [http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n4/]; and Report of the
Technical Advisory Committee on the Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure,
submitted to the Massachusetts State Department of Education and Commissioner of
Education, Jan. 14, 2002.

---

CRS-3
programs for improvement. It also includes provisions to increase the extent to
which higher education institutions are held accountable for the quality of their
teacher graduates.
Most recently, the 107th Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) to make K-12 teacher quality a central requirement for
elementary and secondary school districts and state educational agencies receiving
funding under ESEA Title I, Part A. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L.
107-110) amended the ESEA to require state education agencies to have plans
ensuring that by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, all teachers teaching core
academic subjects will be “highly qualified.”7
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Programs
Title II, Part A of the HEA (as amended by the Higher Education Amendments
of 1998, P.L. 105-244) provides for three competitively awarded grants to improve
K-12 teacher quality — state grants, partnership grants, and recruitment grants.
Appropriated funds are to be divided as follows: 45% to state grants, 45% to
partnership grants, and 10% to teacher recruitment grants. The FY2004
appropriation was $88.888 million. The FY2005 level is $68.337 million. The
complete appropriations history of the program is provided in Table 1. Between
FY1999 and FY2003, all but 9 states and territories received state grant funding
under this program, as did 38 partnerships. In addition, 47 recruitment grants were
made during this time period.
Table 1. Appropriations for the Teacher Quality
Enhancement Grant Program, FY1999-FY2005
($ in millions)
Fiscal year
Appropriation
1999
77.2
2000
98.0
2001
98.0
2002
90.0
2003
89.4
2004
88.9
2005
68.3
State Grants. These one-time, three-year competitive grants are awarded to
the state governor unless state constitution or law designates another person, entity,
or agency as responsible for teacher certification and preparation. Participating states
7 In an October 21, 2005 letter to chief state school officers, the Secretary of Education
announced that states not meeting the 2005-2006 deadline would receive an additional year
to comply if they can demonstrate that a good-faith effort will be made to reach that goal as
soon as possible. See CRS Report RL30834 for the definition of highly qualified.

---

CRS-4
must provide a matching amount in cash or kind from non-federal sources equal to
50% of the amount of the federal grant. State grant funds must be used for one or
more of the following activities:
! holding teacher preparation programs accountable for the academic
and teaching quality of the teachers they prepare;
! reforming teacher certification requirements;
! creating alternatives to traditional teacher preparation programs and
alternative routes to teacher certification;
! creating mechanisms that enable local educational agencies (LEAs)
and schools to recruit highly qualified teachers, reward academically
effective teachers and superintendents, and expeditiously remove
incompetent or unqualified teachers; and
! addressing the problem of social promotion.
Priority in the awarding of state grants is given to applicants that have
undertaken initiatives to reform certification requirements designed to improve
teacher skills and content knowledge, reformed mechanisms to hold higher education
institutions accountable for teacher preparation, or developed efforts to reduce the
shortage of highly qualified teachers in high poverty urban and rural areas.
Each state receiving a state grant must report annually to ED and the House
Education and the Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee on progress toward certain specified objectives. Among
these are:
! increasing achievement by all students;
! raising the academic standards required for entering teaching
(including incentives to require an academic major in the subject or
a discipline related to the one in which the individual plans to teach);
! increasing the pass rate on initial licensing assessments;
! increasing the number of teachers certified through alternative
routes;
! increasing the percentage of secondary school classes in core
subjects taught by teachers with academic majors in those or related
fields, or who are able to demonstrate competence through subject
tests or classroom performance in core subjects;
! increasing the percentage of elementary school classes taught by
teachers who have academic majors in the arts and sciences or who
can demonstrate competence through high levels of performance in
core subjects;
! decreasing shortages of qualified teachers in poor urban and rural
areas;
! increasing the opportunities for professional development; and
! increasing the number of teachers able to apply technology to the
classroom.
Failure to demonstrate progress by the end of the second year of a state grant can
lead to termination of the grant by ED.

---

CRS-5
Partnership Grants. These one-time, five-year grants are awarded
competitively to partnerships that must include at least three entities: a partner
institution,8 a school of arts and sciences at a higher education institution, and a high
need local educational agency (LEA).9 Other entities may join the partnership such
as the governor or state educational agency (SEA). Partnerships must match from
non-federal sources 25% of the partnership grant in the first year, 35% in the second,
and 50% in each succeeding year. No single member of the partnership can retain
more than 50% of the grant funds. These grants must be used for the following:
! holding teacher preparation programs accountable for the academic
and teaching quality of the teachers they prepare;
! providing preservice clinical experience to teacher candidates and
increasing the interaction between higher education faculty and
elementary and secondary school staff; and
! providing professional development to improve teachers’ content
knowledge and teaching skills.
Partnerships may also support such activities as:
! recruiting teachers;
! preparing teachers to work with diverse student populations;
! providing leadership training to principals and superintendents; and
! disseminating information on effective partnership practices.
In awarding these competitive grants, ED is to give priority to applicants that
involve businesses, provide for an equitable geographic distribution across the U.S.,
and encourage activities that carry the potential for creating improvement and
positive change.
8 A partner institution is a public or private higher education institution with a teacher
training program that (1) has either an 80% or higher pass rate by its graduates on state
qualifying assessments for new teachers, or is ranked among the highest performing
programs in the state; or (2) requires its students to participate in intensive clinical
experience, meet high academic standards, and either complete an academic major (in the
subject in which the student intends to teach if preparing to teach at the secondary level, or
in the arts and sciences if preparing to teach at the elementary level) or otherwise
demonstrate competence.
9 According to the statute, a high need LEA is one that is serving an elementary or secondary
school in an area with a high percentage of individuals from families in poverty, a high
percentage of out-of-field secondary school teachers, or a high teacher turnover rate. These
criteria are defined more precisely through program regulations. According to 34 CFR
611.1, a high need LEA must meet one of the following sets of conditions: (1) have at least
one school in which 50% or more of the students are eligible for free and reduced price
school lunches, or be eligible to operate, without a waiver, a schoolwide program under
ESEA, Title I; (2) have a school in which more than 34% of the academic classroom
teachers do not have a major, minor, or significant course work in their main field of
assignment, or have a school with two core subject fields in which more than 34% of the
teachers with main assignments in those fields do not have a major, minor, or significant
course work in their main assigned field; or (3) serve a school with a classroom teacher
attrition rate of 15% or more over the last three school years.

---

CRS-6
Each partnership that receives a partnership grant must include an evaluation
plan in its application. That plan must include objectives and measures that are
similar to those on which states must report, with the inclusion of an objective to
increase teacher retention in the first three years of teaching. Failure to demonstrate
progress on these objectives and measures by the end of the third year of a
partnership grant can lead to termination of the grant.
Teacher Recruitment Grants. These one-time, three-year grants are
awarded competitively to states or eligible partnerships (meeting the eligibility
criteria for the partnership grants). States and partnerships have the same matching
requirements for these grants as they have under their separate grant programs (see
descriptions above). Recruitment grant funds must be used for either of the
following:
! teacher education scholarships, support services to help recipients
complete postsecondary education, and followup services during
their first three years of teaching (each year of assistance requires a
year of teaching in high need LEAs); or
! activities enabling high need LEAs and schools to recruit highly
qualified teachers.
The authorizing statute appears to specify that recipients of recruitment grants
must report annually to the Secretary concerning progress being made to achieve the
purposes of Title II Part A, and that failure to demonstrate progress by the end of the
second year of a recruitment grant can lead to termination of the grant.
Additional Requirements. Any LEA or school that benefits from activities
under HEA Title II must, upon request, provide parents of students with information
about the subject matter qualifications of students’ classroom teachers.10
The Secretary must report to the House Education and the Workforce
Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
regarding evaluation of the activities funded under this title, and disseminate
successful practices and information on ineffective ones.
Implementation and Evaluation. Information on the implementation and
the impact of the program is available from preliminary results coming from ED’s
four-year national evaluation of the partnership grant program, and a recent
Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly the General Accounting Office)
report on all of Title II, Part A.
Among the interim findings from ED’s national evaluation of the partnership
grant program are the following:11 partnerships are predominantly implementing the
10 The ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, has a similar reporting
requirement for each LEA receiving ESEA Title I, Part A funding.
11 U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Partnerships for
Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation through the Title II HEA Partnership Program,
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
professional development school model;12 participating teacher preparation programs
are changing their goals, and aligning their offerings with district and school
standards; the partnerships are increasing the collaboration between education faculty
and arts and sciences faculty; and new relationships are emerging that link
partnership institutions and other entities, such as businesses and nonprofit
organizations. This interim report offers descriptive information; evaluation of the
impact of partnership grants on K-12 students’ academic achievement will be
reported on in the future.
The GAO in its report described program implementation. In that context, it
identified some difficulties the program has had, and will have in evaluating its
impact, and cited a key funding problem.13 The GAO found that, in general, Teacher
Quality Enhancement Grant projects are focusing primarily on reforming
requirements for certification and for teacher preparation (85% of grantees surveyed
— includes projects funded under all three programs), providing professional
development to current teachers (85% of grantees surveyed), and recruiting new
teachers (72% of grantees surveyed).
GAO posited that evaluating projects’ impact on teaching quality will be hard
to do. The report is critical of ED for not approaching this task systematically and
for failing to provide adequate guidance on the assessment and reporting
requirements necessary to allow for such evaluation.
Given that the state grants are, by statute, one-time only grants, GAO concluded
that, without change to the law, ED could be unable to expend the state grant funding.
As noted above, nearly all states and territories have received state grant funding.
With few eligible to receive new grants, ED might not be able to comply with the
mandate that 45% of the annual appropriation be devoted to state grants. As
requested by ED, the FY2005 appropriations legislation overrides the 45-45-10
split.14 In its FY2005 request, ED estimated that, without this authority, over $22
million of the FY2005 request could lapse (i.e., have to be returned to the Treasury).15
11 (...continued)
Interim Report, Doc 2003-8, 2004. Available on the Web at [http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/
eval/teaching/title2hea/changing-teacher-prep.html].
12 A professional development school is a K-12 school in partnership with a higher
education institution. Preservice teacher training occurs in the professional development
school with the direct involvement of higher education and K-12 faculty.
13 GAO, Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training but
Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced, GAO-03-6, Dec. 2002. Findings from
this study on the Title II accountability provisions are considered later in this CRS report.
14 ED requested such language in its FY2004 budget proposal but it was not included in the
FY2004 appropriations legislation as enacted.
15 According to ED (Fiscal Year 2004 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the
Congress), in FY2002, $2.1 million of the annual appropriation lapsed because there were
not enough “fundable” applications for either the state or recruitment grants.

---

CRS-8
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Programs —
Accountability
This section describes the general teacher education accountability requirements
of Title II, Part A, and their implementation.16 All states and nearly all teacher
education programs in the country are affected by the accountability provisions in the
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant program.
State Reports. States receiving funds under the HEA must prepare an annual
report card for the Secretary of Education on the quality of teacher preparation
including information on:
! the pass rate of graduates on all assessments used for teacher
certification;
! waivers of certification requirements, particularly for teachers
serving in high and low poverty school districts and in different
subject areas;
! state teacher licensing assessments and requirements;
! state standards for initial certification;
! alignment of state teacher assessments with state standards and
assessments for students;
! alternative routes to teacher certification and the pass rates of
individuals following such routes; and
! criteria being used to assess the performance of teacher preparation
programs.
Higher Education Institution Reports. Any institution of higher education
with a teacher education program enrolling HEA-aided students must release an
annual report to the state and the public detailing the certification pass rates of its
graduates, a comparison of its pass rates with the average pass rates of all such
programs in the state, and whether the program is designated as “low-performing”
(see below). A higher education institution that fails to provide the required
information in a timely or accurate manner may be fined up to $25,000.
Low-Performing Teacher Preparation Programs. To continue receiving
HEA funds, a state must establish procedures for identifying low-performing teacher
preparation programs and for providing them with technical assistance. An annual
list of low-performing programs and those at risk of such designation must be
provided to the Secretary of Education. States set the criteria for determining low
performance and may include data collected under Title II Part A, such as pass rates
of graduates. An institution of higher education with a teacher education program
that has lost state approval or funding because of its designation as low-performing
is ineligible for professional development funding from ED, and cannot enroll any
students receiving assistance under HEA Title IV (source of the major federal student
aid programs) in its teacher preparation program.
16 This section is drawn from CRS Report RL31254, Pass Rates as an Accountability
Measure for Teacher Education Programs, by James B. Stedman and Bonnie F. Mangan.

---

CRS-9
Secretary’s Annual Report on the Quality of Teacher Preparation.
The Secretary of Education is required to prepare an annual report on the quality of
teacher preparation based on information contained in the state report cards. The
report is based on data submitted by each state describing the quality of teacher
preparation in the state, including pass rates on teacher certification assessment,
waivers of certification requirements, and the identification of low-performing
teacher education programs.
Implementation. In June, 2002, the Secretary issued the first full annual
report as required under this legislation.17 Entitled Meeting the Highly Qualified
Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality, the report
concluded that the teacher preparation system in this country has serious limitations.
Not only does acceptable performance on certification assessments differ markedly
from state to state, ED found that most states, in setting the minimum score
considered to be a passing score, set those scores well below national averages.
Although the Title II legislation requires teacher programs to report on the pass rates
of “graduates,” in implementing this requirement, ED allowed teacher education
programs to report the pass rates of “program completers.” Institutions requiring
passage of the initial certification exam as a condition for program completion had
100% pass rates.18 Three subsequent annual reports reiterate many of the findings
included in the first report, but find that areas in which progress is being made to
improve teacher quality.
GAO has also reported on the implementation of the Title II accountability
provisions. In its December 2002 report (cited above), GAO concluded that ED
could not accurately report on the quality of teacher education programs in general
given the limitations of the information being collected as part of Title II
accountability provisions. The report was also critical of the use of the term
“program completer” in determining pass rates, noting that institutions and states
could make their teacher preparation programs appear more successful than they
actually were.19
17 As required by the authorizing statute, the Secretary had issued an earlier report to the
education committees of the U.S. Congress that compiled selected, available data from the
states — U.S. Department of Education, The Initial Report of the Secretary on the Quality
of Teacher Preparation, undated.
18 According to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, of the 1,191
institutions for which ED reported pass rate data, 308 or 26% had 100% pass rates (AASCU
Report to Congress: Validity of 100 Percent Pass Rate Scores, downloaded on March 3,
2003, from [http://www.aascu.org/passrateReport]). The Secretary’s annual report identifies
five states and Guam as having 100% pass rates as a whole.
19 The American Association of State Colleges and Universities analyzed its member
institutions that reported a 100% pass rate. AASCU concluded that, for its member
institutions, the 100% pass rates were not the result of deliberate attempts to subvert the
Title II reporting requirements.

---

CRS-10
Reauthorization Issues
This section briefly identifies a number of issues related to the Teacher Quality
Enhancement Grants that might be considered during an HEA reauthorization
process. Issues addressing the grant programs funded under this authority are
considered separately from those arising from the general accountability provisions
applying to all states and nearly all teacher preparation programs.
Grant Program Issues. Congressional consideration of the grant programs
(state, partnership, and recruitment) may include at least the following issues.
Effectiveness of the Programs. It is probably too early to tell whether the
three grant programs authorized by Title II, Part A have achieved their objectives.
Funding has been awarded over five fiscal years. It does not appear that any grantees
have had their grants revoked for failing to demonstrate progress. The sole national
evaluation of Title II, for which we have only preliminary results, is focused on the
partnership grants. Further, as GAO noted in its report, evaluating the impact of Title
II grants in general may be difficult given ED’s administration of the programs.
The current statute establishes a reporting and evaluating process applying to all
grantees, with continued funding conditioned on demonstrating progress. In light of
the GAO findings, the Congress may consider whether this process is adequate but
not well implemented, or whether the process itself should be amended.
Funding Structure. As ED and GAO have observed, the mandated division of
the annual appropriation for these programs and the one-time only nature of the state
grants raise the prospect of ED being unable to expend fully the state grant portion of the
appropriation. One or the other of these features of the current program structure will
probably have to be modified if future funding is to be fully spent.
Program and Activities Mix. The funding structure issue raises questions
about the appropriate mix of programs and activities being funded under this
authority. ED requested FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations authority to allow state
grant funds to shift to partnerships; such authority was included in the FY2005
appropriations legislation. During the reauthorization process, the Congress may
consider where the emphasis should be placed among these kinds of grants or the
kinds of activities being supported. How important is it to have SEAs involved in
addressing the improvement of teacher preparation or in strengthening teacher
recruitment? Is the interaction among the various entities engaged in partnership
grants likely to have a significant impact on the quality of teacher preparation and
recruitment, and, if so, should support for partnerships be expanded? How should
the Congress respond to the concern expressed by various higher education
associations that the Title II programs offer little or no direct support for improving
teacher preparation at higher education institutions?20 Where should the balance be
placed among investment in such activities as teacher preparation, teacher
20 See Recommendations for Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, submitted to the
Congress by various higher education associations, Jan. 30, 2003, p. 21, available at
[http://www.acenet.edu/washington/HEAReauthorization.2003.pdf].

---

CRS-11
recruitment, professional development, and accountability? How much support
should be directed to alternatives to traditional teacher preparation programs and
alternative routes to certification?
Teacher Preparation Program Accountability Issues. The general
accountability provisions of Title II, Part A applicable to states and higher education
institutions with teacher preparation programs have generated significant debate since
their inception. Several of the issues that have arisen are briefly identified below.21
Identification of Teacher Preparation Programs as Low-Performing.
As described earlier in this report, the standards for identifying teacher preparation
programs as low-performing under Title II are set by each individual state. These
may or may not involve the various criteria in the reports required from institutions
and states, such as the pass rates of graduates on initial licensure exams. Federal
consequences for an institution identified as low-performing flow only if its state
takes specified action. To date, relatively few institutions have been identified as
low-performing under the Title II provisions. The Congress may consider whether
to modify this framework. Proposals may be considered to bring the federal
government more directly into the process through such steps as setting the low-
performance standards or imposing federal penalties independent of any state action
against the teacher preparation program. Alternatively, given how recently the
current framework was initiated, some may want to maintain it without significant
change and see what impact it has over time. Still others may argue for scrapping
this federal effort since the standards are inconsistent across states.
Effectiveness of Accountability Based on Pass Rates. The Congress
may consider whether the emphasis in the Title II accountability process on licensing
exam pass rates should be constrained or expanded. The utility of the current pass
rate-based system from a national perspective may be limited because the selection
of certification exams and the setting of passing scores are state specific and do not
easily allow for interstate comparisons. Further, recent research concludes that many
current licensing exams are not rigorous, measuring essentially basic skills.22
Increased institutional pass rates on such exams may say relatively little about
whether teacher preparation programs are graduating students who will be good
teachers. Nevertheless, the premise that teacher preparation programs should
graduate students who can pass initial credentialing exams does not appear to be at
issue. Indeed, there is some evidence that higher education institutions may respond
to low pass rates with, what one set of researchers described as, “innovative strategies
to enhance the content knowledge of prospective teachers as well as their writing and
reading skills.”23
21 See, also CRS Report RL31254, Pass Rates as an Accountability Measure for Teacher
Education Programs, by James B. Stedman and Bonnie F. Mangan.
22 See “The Education Trust, Not Good Enough: A Content Analysis of Teacher Licensing
Examinations,” Thinking K-16, spring 1999.
23 Larry H. Ludlow et al., “The Case That Won’t Go Away: Besieged Institutions and the
Massachusetts Teacher Tests,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, Dec. 12, 2002, as
downloaded on Mar. 14, 2003, from [http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n50/]. (A “besieged”
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
For some policymakers, the limitations of the present system may suggest that
the current federal involvement is but an initial step in a multi-step process necessary
to improve teacher preparation program quality. For example, consideration may be
given to establishing a single, nationwide standard, although such a proposal is likely
to prove politically controversial. For others, the reporting burden and difficulty in
making cross-state comparisons may suggest a refocusing of these provisions,
perhaps to measures of state support for teacher preparation or the alignment of state
certification exams with state standards for teacher preparation program approval.
Calculation of Pass Rates. One of the more specific issues that the
Congress may debate during the reauthorization process is the calculation of pass
rates. This debate is likely to focus particularly on the 100% pass rates reported by
some states and many institutions. As described earlier, such rates resulted in part
from decisions made by ED regarding the definition of a graduate and in part from
institutional and state policies. To the extent that increasing numbers of institutions
report 100% pass rates the utility of these rates as an accountability measure is
undercut. The Congress may consider various alternatives to address this issue. For
example, institutions might be required to report the extent to which graduates passed
certification exams the first time they took them, regardless of how the institutions
define a graduate. Alternative measures to gauge the teaching effectiveness of
graduates of a program might be considered, such as changes in the academic
performance of a teacher’s students or expressions of school administrator
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a program’s graduates.
Legislative Activity in the 109th Congress
As noted earlier, the 109th Congress is considering legislation to renew Title II
and the rest of the HEA. This concluding section describes two such bills that have
seen substantive legislative action in the 109th Congress – H.R. 609 and S. 1614.
H.R. 609 and S. 1614. On September 8, 2005, the Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee ordered reported S. 1614, the Higher Education
Amendments of 2005. On September 22, 2005, the House Education and the
Workforce Committee ordered reported H.R. 609, the College Access and
Opportunity Act of 2005. These bills would amend and extend the HEA including
Title II, Part A.
General Features and Changes. Under H.R. 609 the general structure of
Part A would be retained — separate programs supporting state activities, partnership
activities, and recruitment (with the annual appropriation divided 45%, 45%, and
10% among these three kinds of grants, respectively). S. 1614 would retain the state
and partnership grant programs, but would eliminate the recruitment grants (and
23 (...continued)
institution is defined as one with a large number of students who failed the initial
administration of the state licensing exam.) Nevertheless, the authors are critical of the
present emphasis on teacher testing, stating, “Even as we applaud the progress made by
besieged institutions in improving test score results, we must continue to inquire into
deleterious results of testing that detract from essential components of teacher preparation.”

---

CRS-13
divide the appropriation in half for the state and partnership programs). The House
bill would authorize $300 million for Part A programs for FY2006 and such sums as
may be necessary for the five succeeding fiscal years. The Senate bill would
authorize such sums as necessary for FY2006 and the succeeding five fiscal years.
Among changes that apply throughout the Part A programs, both H.R. 609 and
S. 1614 would focus these programs on preparing and retaining highly qualified
teachers as defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.24 Both bills would also add other definitions
from the No Child Left Behind Act including; exemplary teacher, professional
development, scientifically based reading research, and scientifically based research.
Further, both bills would increase the emphasis on the recruiting of minorities to K-
12 teaching, expand the list of activities grantees can engage in, and strengthen the
accountability provisions of current law.
State Grants. To address the concerns about meeting the prescribed division
of the appropriation funds among state grants, partnership grants, and recruitment
grants, both H.R. 609 and S. 1614 would no longer limit states to a one-time only
grant. Although most currently authorized uses of funds would be continued, both
bills add several new activities. Both bills would add innovative programs as an
allowable use of funds. Among their activities, these innovative programs would be
designed to increase the flexibility of teacher preparation programs in meeting state
requirements, generate long term data on teachers’ impact on student achievement,
provide high quality preparation to individuals from groups underrepresented in
teaching, and create measures to gauge the performance of teacher preparation
programs in preparing highly qualified teachers. Both bills identify charter colleges
of education and university and local educational partnership schools as examples
of such innovative efforts.
The similarities between H.R. 609 and S. 1614 extend to the area of evaluation.
In both bills, states would be newly authorized to use funds to develop ways of
measuring the effectiveness of teacher preparation and professional development
programs, and to document student achievement gains and teachers’ mastery of
subjects taught as a result of these programs. Among other changes to authorized
uses of funds, states could use Part A funds for strategies to improve the quality of
preschool teachers and their preparation programs. Funded states would be required
to establish systems to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher preparation and
professional development in increasing student achievement and teachers’ subject
matter mastery.
Unlike H.R. 609, S. 1614 would also add several activities to the state grant
program that currently are authorized under the recruitment grant program (which
would be eliminated by the bill). These activities include scholarships to help teacher
education students pay for educational costs, student support services for scholarship
recipients, induction services during a recipients first three years teaching, and
recruitment mechanisms for high-need LEAs.
24 For the definition of a highly qualified K-12 teacher in that legislation, see CRS Report
RL30834.

---

CRS-14
Partnership Grants. With regard to entities in eligible partnerships, both S.
1614 and H.R. 609 modify the definitions of partner institution and high need local
educational agency. The Senate bill would add two-year institutions offering a dual
enrollment with a four-year program as an eligible partner. The House bill would
raise the pass rate eligibility requirement for an institution to be considered a partner
institution from 80% to 100%. Both bills would add a fourth entity to those required
to form an eligible partnership – H.R. 609 would require that this be a public or
private education organization; S. 1614 would include such an organization among
a list of several other entities.
Under current law, program eligibility is determined in part by the definition
of a high-need local educational agency. The current definition refers to LEAs with
a “high percentage” of students below the poverty line, a “high percentage” of out-of-
field teachers, or a “high teacher turnover rate.” Both H.R. 609 and S. 1614 would
retain the latter two components of the current definition and would amend the first
component and also make it a requirement for eligibility.25 Each bill would make
similar modifications to the first component by including rural LEAs and by more
precisely specifying minimum enrollment counts or percentages of low-income
students.26 Further, current law prohibits any entity in a partnership from retaining
more than 50% of the partnership’s funding; S. 1614 removes this provision. H.R.
609 would instead amend this provision to require that the high need LEA in a
partnership benefit directly from at least 50% of funding.
Current law requires partnerships to undertake three required activities —
accountability for teacher preparation programs, preservice clinical experience
activities, and professional development. S. 1614 would continue to require the first
two activities and amends the third activity to involve support programs for new
teachers. Under H.R. 609, partnerships would be required to choose among four
activities – accountability for teacher preparation programs, preservice clinical
experience activities, professional development, and teacher preparation activities
that train teachers to serve student with different learning styles and to improve
student behavior.
Current law authorizes four additional activities that partnerships may
conduct. H.R. 609 would expand the number of allowable activities to eight and S.
1614 would expand this number to thirteen. Among the new activities in both bills,
partnerships could undertake activities regarding alternatives to traditional teacher
preparation and alternative avenues to state certification; activities providing clinical
experience in math, science, and technology; coordination activities with community
colleges to implement teacher preparation programs; teacher mentoring programs;
and teacher training in the use of technology. S. 1614 would also add several
activities to the partnership grant program that are currently authorized under the
recruitment grant program (which would be eliminated by the bill). These activities
include scholarships to help teacher education students pay for educational costs,
student support services for scholarship recipients, induction services during a
25 Under current law, LEAs need only satisfy one of the three components.
26 The bills define a high need LEA as an LEA that has either at least 10,000 low-income
students, an enrollment that is at least 25% low-income (20% in Senate bill), or has an
enrollment of less than 600 students and no school with a locale code of other than 7.

---

CRS-15
recipients first three years teaching, and recruitment mechanisms for high-need
LEAs.
Recruitment Grants. While S. 1614 would fold this program into the state
and partnership programs, H.R. 609 would make minor amendments to the program.
The House bill would require applicants for these grants to describe how funds will
be used to recruit minority students. New language would establish a priority in the
selection among eligible applicants for those assuring they will recruit a high
percentage of minority students. The bill would also allow grant funds to be used for
recruiting into teaching employees from technology industries and other “high-
demand” industries, as well as from science, math, and engineering fields in general.
Accountability Provisions. Both H.R. 609 and S. 1614 would more
closely align the intended outcomes of Title II, Part A with the goals of the NCLBA.
This alignment occurs many through the accountability and evaluation provisions.
Both bills would amend current grantee reporting requirements to include evidence
of progress made toward meeting the highly-qualified teacher requirements of the
NCLBA. S. 1614 would further amend current accountability language to require
more detailed evidence of reduction in the teacher shortages present in low-income
urban and rural areas, high-need academic subjects, special education, instruction of
limited English proficient students, and early childhood education. Both bills would
add highly-qualified terminology to the requirements for Partnership application and
evaluation. S. 1614 would require much greater detail in the Secretary’s evaluation
of these programs and subsequent report to the Congress.
The bills also seek to address concerns about 100% pass rates being reported
by those states and teacher preparation programs requiring passage of initial
certification exams as a condition of program completion. H.R. 609 and S. 1614
would expand the provisions on accountability for programs that prepare teachers.
Both bills would require greater detail than required under current law on pass rates
on certification and licensure exams and greater sharing information between State
educational agencies and teacher preparation programs. Both bills would require
reporting of pass rates for students who take these exams while still enrolled in a
teacher preparation program. The House bill would require this of such “students
who have completed at least 50 percent of the requirements for a teacher preparation
program.” The Senate bill would require this of such “students who have completed
100 percent of the nonclinical coursework.”

---