Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants

Current Section
 Office of Postsecondary Education Home
Grantee Performance and Efficiency Measures Analyses: 2005-06 and 2006-07
Archived Information

  • Grantee Analysis and Summary, 2005-06: download filesMS Excel (45K) | PDF (26K)
  • Grantee Analysis and Summary, 2006-07: download filesMS Excel (38K) | PDF (25K)

At the Department of Education (Department), we are working to make sure American taxpayers receive better value for their money by improving federal program performance and increasing efficiency, while reducing waste. These goals go hand-in-hand with promoting increased program flexibility and innovation. To measure performance in the Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) program, which provides grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs), local education agencies (LEAs), and state education agencies (SEAs) to make lasting changes in the ways teachers are recruited, prepared, licensed, and supported, the Department has established performance outcome measures both for results (impact) and efficiency.


The outcome measures are:

  • The percentage of preservice teachers passing subject matter competency tests as part of state licensure requirements in the state program.
  • The percentage of program completers in the Partnership projects who are highly qualified teachers.
  • The federal cost per highly qualified Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership program completer (efficiency measure).


Four sources were used for the performance and efficiency measure data: the 2005-06 and 2006-07 TQE Annual Performance Reports (APRs); the Title II Higher Education Act (HEA) state reporting system (https://title2.ed.gov); the Department's National Center for Education Statistics' Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS); and grant funding levels.

  • The Title II, HEA state reporting system provided state-level summary passing rates for program completers taking tests for certification or licensure.
  • 2005-06 and 2006-07 TQE APRs: Partnership grantees provided the number of program completers and the number of highly qualified teachers during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 reporting years.
  • IPEDS: Data on institutional characteristics came from IPEDS, which can be found at http://www.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/.

For the Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) Partnership projects, the efficiency measure is the cost per successful outcome, which is calculated by dividing the funding obligated to a project for a given budget period by the total number of highly qualified teachers completing a teacher preparation program from the grantee institution.


The main purpose of providing these data is to inform the public and stakeholder communities about ongoing program outcomes. The Department also expects that grantee-level information will be specifically useful to grantees themselves, allowing partnership grantees, for example, to compare their own projects to others with similar funding levels or similar characteristics.


Grantee-level data are presented in separate Excel worksheet tables for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years. One row in each table corresponds to a single grantee, identified by the name of the principal partner in the Partnership grants, and by the name of the grantee state entity in the state grants.

The following notes relate to the 2005-06 and 2006-07 grantee tables:

  • For seven Partnership program grantees, there were no program completers during 2005-06, due to the time required to have participants complete the program. Accordingly, neither the percentage of highly qualified teachers nor the project cost per highly qualified teacher could be calculated for these grantees; values for these measures were computed for the remaining 23 grantees.
  • For the State grantees, testing data are not available for Iowa or Palau, since these states do not use testing for teacher certification. State grants initially funded in FY 2003 ended on 9/30/2006; no data are included in this report for these five states (Arizona, the Marshall Islands, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Palau) for 2006-07, although Arizona, Minnesota and Palau did submit data for this period. Only two State grants were funded in 2006-07: Guam and Iowa; of these, only Guam has testing data.
  • The number of program completers can vary markedly from one year to the next. In many cases, this is due to programs getting underway in 2005-06 and therefore not having any program completers, as mentioned above; but in three cases, this is due to a reduction in the number of program completers from one year to the next.



In addition to the grantee-level data, summary tables aggregate Partnership data by funding levels, levels of the outcome measures, and selected characteristics of the lead partnership institutions.

The following notes relate to the 2005-06 and 2006-07 summary tables:

  • The number of teachers completing teacher preparation programs in the Partnership program increased from 2005-06 to 2006-07, going from 6,594 to 10,319. The federal cost per program completer correspondingly declined from 2005-06 to 2006-07, going from an average of $4,300 to $3,418.
  • The percentage of program completers who are highly qualified teachers (HQT) went from 97 percent in 2005-06 to 99 percent in 2006-07.
  • IPEDS data could not be provided for grantees that are school districts or combined groups or systems of postsecondary institutions. Accordingly, data on urbanicity are not available for three grantees; data on institutional enrollment are not available for four grantees; and data for percent of students receiving grant aid are not available for five grantees.
  • Cost per highly qualified teacher varied by region, but the variability was due largely to the small numbers of grantees in some regions. The same pattern of variability was found in examining grantee outcomes by urbanicity.


Back to Performance page | Student Service Home

Print this page Printable view Bookmark  and Share
Last Modified: 03/16/2011