Search

It is indisputable that teachers and principals have the greatest impact on student learning. Unfortunately, the education system has hired and tenured thousands of ineffective teachers and principals, particularly in high-poverty urban and rural schools. As a consequence, these schools have low levels of student learning. To remedy this problem, the nation is engaged in multiple activities to get effective teachers into all classrooms and effective principals into all schools through more "strategic management" of education talent. Strategic talent management is an approach that manages all human resource programs--recruitment, selection, placement, development, evaluation, tenure, promotion, dismissal, and compensation--around a set of effectiveness metrics that capture instructional practice and student-learning growth. The theory is that effective principals should manage schools in ways that facilitate teachers' acquiring the instructional expertise they need to make them and the school effective--that is to say, successful in dramatically boosting student learning. This paper examines the evolving landscape of talent management in education, which is broken out in five sections: (1) Talent management, or lack thereof, in education at the close of the 20th century; (2) Educational change that began at the dawn of the 21st century; (3) Rumblings of change that evolved into comprehensive new federal and state human-capital management policies and local practices; (4) Rumblings of change that coalesced into a foundation of change across the country and the new world of talent management; and (5) Why the focus on talent evolved and quickly assumed such a prominent role in the nation's education policy and practice agendas.

This study estimates the costs of providing a high-quality PreK-3rd education approach in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Relying on an Evidence-Based approach to school finance adequacy, it identifies the staffing resources needed to offer high-quality integrated PreK-3rd programs and then estimates the costs of those resources. By developing a highly flexible model, it is possible to simulate alternative staffing resource configurations for PreK-3rd programs providing a state-by-state estimate of the cost to implement the program. If it is assumed that 65 percent of three- and four-year-old children will participate in PreK programs, the estimated additional cost of providing the resources for PreK-3rd ranges from $28.4 billion, if eligibility is limited to three- and four-year-olds at 100 percent of the federal poverty level, to $78.7 billion if PreK is universally available to three- and four-year-olds. These costs range from $2,237 to $3,975 per student served, and vary considerably by state. These state-by-state estimates can be further refined by using more detailed individual state data systems, if they are available. (Contains 5 tables, 1 figure, 3 footnotes and 11 online resources.)

This policy brief describes how the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) has approached the objectives of educational equity and adequacy over the past decade and a half, and reveals how their current finance research has begun to explicitly link the level and use of resources with strategies that districts and schools can deploy to literally double student performance over a 5- to 10-year period. During the time period over which this finance research agenda has evolved, CPRE researchers believe it has succeeded in linking school finance equity and adequacy, both by aligning effective allocation and use of resources to the most powerful and comprehensive school-based strategies to boost student learning and by identifying strategies for how and how much to pay teachers. This summary of CPRE school finance research and its policy conclusions addresses the following topics: (1) How education dollars are spent; (2) Tracking education resources at the school level and by educational strategy; (3) Education resource reallocation; (4) Toward school finance adequacy; (5) Using resources to double student achievement; (6) Use of dollars after a school finance reform; (7) Pricing adequacy recommendations and enhancing teacher compensation; and (8) Policy and practice implications. (Contains 1 table and 5 footnotes.)

State accountability systems and the federal No Child Left Behind Act have put additional demands on schools and teachers to improve teacher quality and improve student achievement. Many researchers (e.g., Cohen, 1996; Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; Floden, 1997; Newman, King, & Rigdon, 1997) have argued that such improvements will require a substantial increase in the instructional capacity of schools and teachers. One strategy for capacity building is to provide teachers with incentives to improve their performance, knowledge, or skills. The incentive strategy requires the design and implementation of alternative teacher compensation systems that depart from the single salary schedule (Odden, 2000; Odden & Kelley, 2002). Though slow to take hold, the incentive strategy is currently being pursued by several states (Peterson, 2006). Most of these new or proposed plans link pay to combinations of assessments of teacher performance, acquisition of new knowledge and skills, and student test score gains. The Teacher Compensation Group of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) has been studying the design and effectiveness of such systems for nearly a decade. Findings from this research on some of these systems are the focus of this issue of "CPRE Policy Briefs." Appended is: Summary of Research Activities at the Four Sites.

This report describes knowledge- and skills-based pay systems. It recommends ways that state and district policymakers can strengthen a district's capacity for knowledge- and skills-based pay and describes how these types of pay systems differ from existing compensation schemes that try to address the problem of teaching's flat career structure. The report outlines the key issues in designing knowledge- and skills-based pay systems, paying special attention to supplementing, modifying, or replacing the traditional pay schedule. It discusses the types of knowledge and skills to reward, the methods of knowledge and skill assessment, the types and amounts of pay incentives, the role of teacher associations and collective bargaining, and the costs of knowledge- and skills-based pay programs. Some of the lessons that policymakers have learned in implementing these pay changes is to emphasize the need for continuous, focused learning; to adapt to external standards; to allow teachers to participate in the design process; to be prepared for initial negative reactions from teachers; to prepare principals for the new demands of these programs; and to provide an extensive and continuous orientation and communication program. It also recommends using transition strategies to reduce stress and assigning one person to oversee the entire program. (Contains 22 references.) (RJM)

During the 1997-98 school year, the Sentry Hill School District made the decision to "redesign" Clayton Elementary School after persistently low student achievement placed the district in the lowest category of the district's accountability system. This case study outlines the changes made at the school. Redesigning the school meant removing all extant staff and hiring an all new staff during the summer of 1999. Most of the decisions about the redesign and how resources would be reallocated to fund it were made by the redesign team. A plan was developed with input from the community that had: (1) a whole-school reform model; (2) an emphasis on literacy; (3) new math and reading curricula; (4) an additional hour of instructional time 4 days a week; (5) reduced class sizes of about 15 students per classroom; (6) inclusion of special-education students in regular classrooms; (7) organizing the school into both vertical and horizontal teams; and (8) providing daily, collaborative planning time for teams of teachers. Many decisions regarding resource reallocation were made by the district. The school has made tremendous strides toward improving literacy among its students, though it is too early to say whether these efforts will result in an increase in student achievement scores. (RT)

This study outlines the redesign of an elementary school, including the cost of the redesign. The school had been placed in the lowest category of the district's accountability system. Redesign meant a new principal, staff, schedule, philosophy, and curriculum. Direct Instruction was selected as the whole-school reform for literacy and math programs, with ability grouping based on Direct Instruction assessments. Four hours of additional instruction were gained by eliminating recess. Two daily block times of 90 minutes and 60 minutes were set aside for uninterrupted literacy instruction. Class size was limited to 18, as opposed to the previous 25. Decisions concerning programs and resources were team based, with a vertical multigrade team and a horizontal team for grade-level issues. A sample schedule allowing for block time and team planning is provided. The financial aspects of these changes are also examined. To fund additional classroom teachers for smaller classes, instructional aides were eliminated, federal Title I dollars were reallocated, federal class-size-reduction funds were used, and extra district funds were gained from extra weighting for every student. Other cuts included the librarian becoming a Direct Instruction facilitator and the forming of a partnership with a community group to provide social- and mental-health services. (RKJ)

A previously high-ranking suburban school district with declining student achievement changed to site-based budgeting. The account of the change may also be a cautionary tale about change taken too rapidly. Although a poor economy, the annexation of two Department of Defense schools, and organizational stagnation helped to create lower student achievement, most of the staff attributed this problem to changes in student demographics, rather than to failures of the education program. One undeniable problem was a three million dollar deficit. A new superintendent, with experience in large-scale change, decided to use site-based budgeting to let each school decide how to spend its resources, using data-driven decisions. Each school was now motivated to use its resources as efficiently as possible in its own best interests. He also required the implementation of a research-based whole-school design. The site-based budgeting used a student-based formula that directed more than 53 percent of operating revenues directly to the schools, offering a stable, equitable, and understandable procedure. Other efforts of the central-office staff also saved significant revenue. The details of creating the new budget and the student-based formula are explained thoroughly. The results of the changes can be examined over 3 years. Although not quantified, student achievement results are described as dramatically improved. However, the changes created, to some degree, a climate of mistrust. The new program was initiated in the first year with eight pilot schools, despite the large deficit and the fact that the fiscal year based on the old system was already in effect. As a consequence of accompanying budget cuts, some teachers and central-office staff were dismissed or offered less desirable positions. New problems appeared with the replacement of the computer system. Relations between the district and the union became strained, partly due to having to deal with 26 site councils. The school board itself gained two union-supported candidates against the reforms. Most discouragingly, the superintendent left for a job with the federal government. A slower pace might have mitigated opposition and solidified support for the reforms. (RKJ)

From 1995-98, The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) teacher compensation researchers conducted interviews and survey questionnaires of teachers and principals in three sites to measure the motivational effects of school-based performance award (SBPA) programs. When a school met preset educational objectives, the SBPA programs in Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) and Kentucky provided salary bonuses to all the teachers in the school, and the SBPA program in Maryland provided a monetary award to the school for school improvements. CPRE researchers found that the SBPA programs in two of the three sites helped teachers focus on student performance goals. However, the motivational power of the programs varied due to differences in teachers' beliefs. For instance, it mattered whether teachers believed their individual effort would lead to increases in schoolwide student performance, the SBPA system was fair and the award amount was worth the extra effort and stress, and whether they would be given the award if they could produce the improved performance results. The relationship between teachers, motivated by school-based performance awards or sanctions and improvements in school performance, also varied and may have been attributable to differences in the actual programs as well as the local context. Contains 23 references. (DFR)

Hollister Elementary School was one of several schools in its district to adopt a reform agenda initiated by the new district superintendent in 1995. This report tells the story of the school's adoption, implementation, and funding of the Success for All reading and Math Wings programs. The salient point is that the staff at the school managed to implement one of the most expensive comprehensive school designs with very little additional funding on top of already limited funding. Reform was accomplished because the superintendent set and supported the school on a course for change. He made it clear that to receive Title I funds, schools had to choose a research-based school design that specifically addressed the problems revealed in the needs assessment each school performed. He gave schools in need control over the majority of their school budget. At Hollister, the principal was able to reallocate some resources to the needs of the reform. Funds for former Title I positions allocated by the district plus additional Title I funding allowed payment for the majority of the Success for All and Math Wings programs. Initial student achievement results from both programs are promising. (RT)

The focus of this policy brief is on efforts to redesign state and district school finance systems to align them more closely with the standards-based education reform movement. Past efforts to offset fiscal disparities with state aid in low-property wealth districts have only been moderately successful. Part of the problem lies in the fact that over the past 30 years, strategies to reduce fiscal disparities, whether court ordered or not, have had limited success. Spending per pupil remained highly associated with property wealth. The question of fiscal fairness, however, fails to address what resources are necessary to reach the goal of teaching students to high standards. This requires a shift in thinking from equality to adequacy; a shift that may help policy makers create a new school-finance structure that is linked to strategies that raise levels of student achievement. This report draws up a new finance structure with the goals of identifying the base-level spending needed to teach each student to state standards in each district/school; identifying how much extra funding is needed to teach students with special needs; and providing performance incentives to encourage effective and productive spending. (Contains 43 references.) (JMD)

Teaching all students to high standards may not be achievable with the way the vast bulk of schools in the United States are organized and managed. Under current school structures and management practices, marginal improvements are possible; significantly raising student achievement is not. Accomplishing this requires dramatic improvements that involve adopting powerful, high-performance school designs, for example, those offered by New American Schools. This paper focuses specifically on one aspect of this challenge: determining the cost of each New American Schools design and how to pay for it. It covers rethinking funding for reform, and demonstrates why the New American Schools designs are affordable for most schools. (Contains 21 references.) (DFR)

Student achievement in American schools must improve dramatically if all young people today are to have equal access to the labor markets and be contributing members of society as adults. Currently, only 20 to 25 percent perform proficiently. Standards-based education reform aims to raise that level to at least 75 percent of students mastering the complex subjects of mathematics, reading, writing, science, and history. Accomplishing this goal means schools must rethink current practices, including their management and organizational systems. The report discusses what is known about the elements of an effective decentralized system, and what research and experience suggest about how to implement such a system. It analyzes the research and imparts a perspective about decentralizing decision making and giving individual schools authority and accountability for higher student achievement. (Contains 51 references.) (DFR)

Other organizations in the United States have successfully implemented new compensation structures. This publication argues that it is time for education to join these successful efforts and revise teacher-pay systems. The brief provides a short history of changes in teacher compensation over the last century and a discussion of key organizational and educational changes today that could be reinforced by a new teacher-compensation structure. It also suggests some new teacher-pay elements and a set of principles that states and districts could follow if they were to redesign how teachers are paid. Sidebars present examples of innovative compensation programs in Kentucky, South Carolina, Dallas, and Colorado. Three types of new compensation systems are described: skills- or competency-based, pay-at-risk, and group-based performance awards. Ten process principles for the development, design, and implementation of a new compensation system include: (1) the involvement of all key parties; (2) broad agreement on the most valued educational results; (3) sound, comprehensive evaluation systems; (4) adequate funding; (5) investments in ongoing professional development; (6) avoidance of quotas; (7) consideration of the general conditions of work; (8) management maturity; (9) labor maturity; and (10) persistence. Technical-design elements that should be included in each of the three types of compensation systems are outlined. Figures of four compensation schedules are included. (LMI)

After being placed on the back burner during the 1980s, school finance is again a major issue. In the 1970s, reliance on property taxes created school district disparities because of unequal tax bases. Legislative reforms enacted between 1971 and 1985 had the following characteristics: school finance formulas were revamped; the state role in school, special needs, and urban district funding was increased; and limitations restricting local tax rate control were imposed. One major policy issue left unresolved conerns whether the problem of inequities was in tax base variation (solved by guaranteed tax bases) or in nonmandated per pupil spending. State funding increased from 40 percent to 47 percent during the 1970s and then by 3 percent during the 1980s. Litigation that occurred during the 1980s had three main characteristics: (1) some funding systems were found to be unconstitutional; (2) courts were more restrictive in fiscal disparity magnitudes; and (3) courts emphasized spending differences rather than just the differences between spending and wealth. Over the last two decades a healthy national economy and tax hikes have contributed to increased school funding. The main concern for the 1990s is deciding the best use to make of education revenues; this is best done by analyzing program tradeoffs, education as an investment, and effective allocation of revenue. Three inserts on Utah, California, and Arizona are included. They are: (1) "School Finance in Arizona," by Robert Stout; (2) "California School Finance," by Lawrence Picus; and (3) "Perspective on the Finance of Education in Utah," by Patrick Galvin. (EJS)