GREAT TEACHERS AND GREAT LEADERS

f all the work that occurs at every level of our education system, the interaction 

between teacher and student is the primary determinant of student success. A great 

teacher can make the difference between a student who achieves at high levels and a student 

who slips through the cracks, and a great principal can help teachers succeed as part of a 

strong, well-supported instructional team. Research shows that top-performing teachers can 

make a dramatic difference in the achievement of their students, and suggests that the 

impact of being assigned to top-performing teachers year after year is enough to significantly 

narrow achievement gaps. We have to do more to ensure that every student has an effective 

teacher, every school has effective leaders, and every teacher and leader has access to the 

preparation, on-going support, recognition, and collaboration opportunities he or she needs

to succeed. Our proposals will ask states and districts to put in place the conditions that 

allow for teachers, principals, and leaders at all levels of the school system to get meaningful 

information about their practice, and support them in using this information to ensure that 

all students are getting the effective teaching they deserve.

O

OUR APPROACH

►Elevating the profession and focusing on recruiting, preparing, developing, and 

rewarding effective teachers and leaders.

►Focusing on teacher and leader effectiveness in improving student outcomes.

►Supporting states and districts that are willing to take bold action to increase the 

number of effective teachers and leaders where they are needed most.

►Strengthening pathways into teaching and school leadership positions in high-need 

schools.
This page intentionally left blank.
EFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND LEADERS

OUR APPROACH

► Flexibility with results. Flexible formula grant funding conditioned on SEA and LEA 

improvements in teacher and leader effectiveness and equity. 

► Fair, rigorous evaluation systems. Focus on teacher effectiveness and improved teacher 

evaluation through requirements that LEAs implement a state-approved evaluation system that 

uses multiple rating categories, takes into account student achievement results, and provides 

meaningful feedback and support to teachers for improvement.

► Strengthen the profession. Treat teachers like the professionals they are by providing time for 

collaboration, implementing performance-based pay and advancement, and providing on-the-job 

learning opportunities with peers and experts linked to evaluations and to student needs.

► Equity. More equitable distribution of qualified and effective teachers and leaders through better 

data, an equity plan, and a requirement that Title II funds be directed toward improving equity 

where LEAs are not meeting performance targets. 

► Data for transparency and decision-making. Use of meaningful data and accountability for 

results through program performance measures, state and district human-capital report cards, and 

tracking the effectiveness of professional development and teacher-preparation programs.

UAn Effective Teacher in Every Classroom

The key to student success is providing an 

effective teacher in every classroom and an 

effective principal in every school. Teacher 

effectiveness matters; the research demonstrates 

that teacher effectiveness contributes more to 

improving student academic outcomes than any 

other school characteristic and that an effective 

principal is central to recruiting and supporting 

teachers and leading school improvement 

(Murphy et al., 2006; Rivkin et al., 2005; Waters

et al., 2003). Studies suggest that a student who 

has great teachers for several years in a row will 

be on a path of continued growth and success, 

while a student who is taught by a succession of 

less effective teachers may experience lasting 

academic challenges (Hanushek, 2009; Sanders 

and Rivers, 1996). 

Teachers believe that collaboration among 

colleagues is key to improving student 

achievement, and a recent study suggests 

that teachers learn from other teachers who 

are effective. Two-thirds of teachers report that 

they believe that more collaboration among 

teachers would greatly improve student 

achievement (MetLife, 2010). One study found 

that teachers perceive that the support they 

receive from paraprofessionals and other 

teachers is extremely important in helping them 

to meet the academic needs of the English 

learners in their classrooms (Elfers et al., 2009). 

Finally, a recent study suggests that teachers learn 

from other effective teachers in their schools and 

are more likely to raise student achievement 

when they are surrounded by colleagues who are 

effective at raising achievement (Jackson and 

Bruegmann, 2009).

The current Title II, Part A program must be 

strengthened in order to promote 

improvements in teacher and leader 

effectiveness. Districts have broad latitude in 
how they spend Title II, Part A, formula grant 

funds without being accountable for a systemic 

approach or for improved teaching and learning. 

For example, while approximately 39 percent of 

funds are devoted to professional development 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2009a), the 

most recent federal evaluation of the ESEA finds 

that most teachers report that their professional 

learning experiences (regardless of funding 

source) do not reflect the research-based 

characteristics of effective professional 

development. Only 6 percent of elementary 

teachers reported that they participated in more 

than 24 hours of professional development 

focused on the ―in-depth study of topics in 

mathematics‖ over the entire 2005–06 school 

year, and only 14 percent reported more than 24 

hours of professional development focused on 

the ―in-depth study of topics in reading‖ (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2009b).

Another large portion of Title II, Part A, funds 

(38 percent) is devoted to class size reduction 

Mission Possible Program: Improving Equitable Distribution of Teachers

Guilford County, North Carolina

Guilford County, North Carolina, with a student population of over 70,000 in 120 schools, found its highestpoverty schools staffed by teachers with little experience. One high school did not have a certified math 

teacher for an entire school year. Other schools were unable to fill their math vacancies. To address 

inequities in their teacher workforce, Guilford launched the Mission Possible teacher incentive intervention 

program in 2006. The program started in 20 of its high-need elementary, middle, and high schools and 

added eight more in the second year. Mission Possible combines recruiting, preparation, and performance 

incentives for qualified teachers. Recruitment and performance incentives are significant—for example, a 

$10,000 bonus for those certified in secondary math and up to a $4,000 annual bonus for teachers who 

produce above-average student achievement gains. The program is funded with a combination of local, 

foundation, and federal funds.

In Mission Possible schools, 74 percent of eligible math teachers received a performance bonus. Teacher 

attrition fell 23 percent, and Mission Possible faculty transferring to another district fell 57 percent. Within 

two years, the student-performance gap between Mission Possible and other district schools was 

eliminated in Algebra I, reduced by two-thirds in Algebra II, and diminished by 40 percent in Geometry 

(Holcombe and Sonricker, 2008). An independent evaluation shows that the percentage of fifth- through 

eighth-graders scoring as proficient or above on the state’s annual math assessment was growing faster in 

Mission Possible schools than in comparison schools (Bayonas, 2009; Holcombe and Sonricker, 2008).

(U.S. Department of Education, 2009a). Research 

suggests that when well implemented, substantial 

reductions in class sizes can have a positive 

impact on student achievement, especially for 

high-need students. Most notably, the rigorous 

Tennessee STAR experiment found that reducing 

class sizes in grades K–3 from 22–25 students 

down to 13–17 students had a substantial and 

statistically significant effect on student 

achievement across all four grades in both 

reading and mathematics; some effects were great 

for minority students and for students in innercity schools (Krueger and Whitmore, 2001; 

Mosteller, 1995; Ready, 2008). However, there is 

no requirement in current law that class-sizereduction efforts be research-based.

A systemic and intensive approach to the 

“people side” of education reform can help to 

ensure that all students, particularly those in 

high-poverty schools, have the effective 

teachers and principals they deserve. In order 

to make significant improvements in teacher and 
leader effectiveness, we need to take a 

comprehensive and systemic approach—one that 

builds the collective capacity of the school as 

well as the effectiveness of individuals. This 

approach includes: teacher preparation programs; 

teacher and school leader evaluations and the use 

of evaluations for improvement; compensation 

and incentives to recognize and reward 

effectiveness; the equitable distribution of 

effective teachers and leaders across schools; ongoing professional development and school 

conditions that provide teachers and leaders with 

the time and tools for on-the-job learning with 

colleagues to become as effective as possible; and 

effective school leadership (Goldhaber and 

Hannaway, 2009; Jerald, 2009; Odden and Kelly, 

2008). 

Teacher qualifications are important but do 

not ensure effectiveness on the job. The 

NCLB provisions relating to ―highly qualified‖ 

teachers require that all teachers have a 

bachelor’s degree and state certification, and 

have demonstrated subject matter expertise in 

every core academic subject they teach, or be 

working toward full certification as a participant 

in an alternative route to teaching. The 

percentage of classes taught by teachers who 

meet these requirements has steadily increased 

over the past decade to an average of 95 percent 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2009c). This 

was an important step, but research on teacher 

effectiveness shows that meeting these 

requirements does not predict or ensure that a 

teacher will be successful at increasing student 

learning (Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000; 

Hanushek, 1997; Toch and Rothman, 2008). 

Thus, while the NCLB requirements set 

minimum standards for entry into teaching of 

core academic subjects, they have not driven 

strong improvements in what matters most: the 

effectiveness of teachers in raising student 

achievement.

Most of the current teacher evaluation 

systems that are used around the country fail 

to provide feedback and support in order to 

help teachers improve or differentiate 

effective from ineffective teachers. Highquality teacher evaluations are based on: clear 

performance standards; multiple, distinct rating 

options; regular monitoring; frequent and regular 

feedback; training for evaluators; professional 

development linked to the performance 

standards; and intensive support for teachers 

who fall below the performance standards 

(Weisberg et al., 2009). However, these elements 

are not the norm. Three different studies of 

typical teacher evaluations used in districts found 

that these evaluations were not designed or used 

to provide feedback in order to help teachers to 

improve or to guide teacher professional 

development (Mathers et al. 2008). While 

teachers’ effectiveness in increasing student 

learning varies significantly, the majority of 

school districts across the country do not 

evaluate teachers in a manner that distinguishes 

effective teachers from ineffective teachers or 

take student achievement into account in the 

evaluation (Kane, 2009). A recent study of 12 

districts in four states showed that, in districts 

with binary evaluation ratings (generally 

―satisfactory‖ or ―unsatisfactory‖), more than 99 

percent of teachers received a satisfactory rating; 

in districts with a broader range of ratings, 94 

percent of teachers received one of the top two 

ratings and less than one percent received an 

unsatisfactory rating (Weisberg et al., 2009). 

Most educators are compensated based on 

their years of experience and the courses 

they have taken, with no recognition or 

reward for performance. The traditional pay 

schedule used in most school districts rewards 

teachers based on their years of classroom 

experience and their years of higher education. 

In many districts teachers move up on the salary 
schedule and receive pay increases for additional 

years of teaching and for completing graduate 

courses and degrees, regardless of the courses’ 

relevance to their teaching. It is important to 

note that research shows that there is little 

relationship between length of service and 

performance after the first three to five years of 

teaching and no evidence that teachers with 

master’s degrees perform better (with the 

exception of secondary mathematics teachers 

with master’s degrees in mathematics) 

(Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000; Hanushek et al., 

2005; Miller et al., 2007; Rivkin et al., 2005). 

Most teacher advancement and 

compensation systems offer no incentives for 

experienced, well-qualified teachers to teach 

in challenging schools or shortage areas. In 

the 2009–10 school year, fewer than 10 states 

offered such incentives (Education Week, 2010). 

In a national survey conducted in 2007–08, only 

6 percent of districts reported providing 

incentives to teach in challenging locations, and 

only 15 percent of districts reported providing 

incentives to teach in shortage fields (Aritomi 

and Coopersmith, 2009). In addition, studies 

show that teachers do not have adequate 

opportunities for advancement unless they leave 

the classroom. Among those who leave teaching

for new professions outside of K–12 education, 

Alignment of Effective Teacher Evaluations with Professional Development, Career Ladders, and Payfor-Performance at Edison High School

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Edison High School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, uses the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) to place 

regular teacher evaluation—and several complementary program components that are aligned with the 

evaluation—at the heart of school improvement. Edison is an urban, high-need school in which 

approximately 88 percent of the students are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch and 89 percent are 

minorities. A few years ago, the school was found to be in the bottom 25th percentile of the district’s high 

schools in terms of student academic performance. The staff chose to become a TAP school in order to 

receive the following benefits that would help them to raise student achievement:

► A standards-based evaluation system that identifies areas of strength and development for all 

teachers;

► A strong professional development program that helps all teachers to improve and that is linked to 

the standards;

► A structure to analyze data in order to set goals for the school and for each student;

► A career ladder that provides teachers with opportunities to advance, including the opportunity to 

become a Master teacher and/or a Mentor teacher; and

► A performance-pay bonus system.

Through the standards-based evaluation system, teachers are held accountable for meeting teaching 

standards that are based on effective instruction and for increasing student achievement. Classroom 

evaluations are conducted multiple times during the year by trained and certified evaluators 

(administrators, Master teachers, and Mentor teachers) using clearly defined rubrics. Since implementing 

TAP, Edison has increased teacher retention and has witnessed an increase in the student graduation rate. 

Prior to TAP the school experienced a 70 percent teacher turnover over a two-year period, but during the 

2008–09 school year, the school lost only one staff person due to layoffs. The graduation rate went from 

61 percent in 2006 to 77 percent in 2007 (Daniels, 2009).
58 percent say that their new profession offers 

greater opportunities for advancement than K–12 

teaching (Marvel et al., 2006).

Teachers lack sufficient opportunities for onthe-job learning and the time and tools to 

improve. Studies suggest that effective teacher 

learning focuses on academic content (Kennedy, 

1998; Yoon et al., 2007), and emerging research 

suggests that effective teacher learning and 

instructional improvement also involve teachers 

actively working together and with experts on a 

regular basis to examine student work and 

achievement data, identify effective instructional 

strategies, and establish a cycle of continuous 

improvement of teaching and learning (DarlingHammond, 1997; Gallimore et al., 2009; Garet et 

al., 1999; National Staff Development Council, 

2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). For 

example, a recent study of 15 Title I schools 

found in nine schools where grade-level teams of 

teachers met regularly with the help of 

instructional leadership teams to discuss student 

learning problems, devise solutions, and test the 

solutions in their classrooms, student test scores 

rose to surpass the district averages after five 

years. The instructional leadership teams who led 

the teacher meetings consisted of teacher 

representatives, a reading coach, the school 

principal, and a researcher (Gallimore et al., 

2009).

However, as noted earlier, most teachers do 

not participate in these types of professional 

development experiences and problemsolving activities (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2009b). Teachers and other school 

staff rarely receive the data and feedback they 

need in order to improve instruction (Jerald, 

2009). In addition, educators are rarely provided 

the time to analyze student-achievement data on 

a regular basis; among a nationally representative 

sample of districts, 92 percent recently reported 

that time is a major barrier to these collaborative 

discussions about student achievement (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2010). 

High-poverty and high-minority schools are 

least likely to have qualified and effective 

teachers. A recent study of North Carolina 

teachers found that more effective teachers were 

more likely to transfer out of schools with higher 

percentages of low-income and AfricanAmerican students to schools with lower 

percentages of these student groups, leaving less 

effective teachers concentrated in higher-need 

schools (Goldhaber et al., 2009). Compared 

with classes in low-poverty schools, core 

academic classes in high-poverty secondary 

schools are twice as likely to be taught by a 

teacher without a major or certification in the 

assigned subject (Jerald, 2002). Another study of 

North Carolina data found that districts with 

high proportions of minority students typically 

had higher proportions of novice teachers when 

compared to districts with smaller proportions of 

such students (Clotfelter et al., 2005).

An Effective Principal in Every School

Effective principals are key to strengthening 

teaching and schools, but there has been an 

insufficient investment in recruiting, 

preparing, and supporting great principals, 

particularly for high-poverty schools. Second 

only to classroom instruction, school leadership 

is the most important school-based variable 

affecting student achievement (Leithwood et al., 

2004). The school leader affects student 

achievement in many ways, including playing a 

critical role in creating a school culture focused 

on learning and high expectations (Murphy et al., 

2006). The school leader also affects the quality 

of the instructional staff through hiring decisions 

and professional development activities (Papa et 

al., 2003). Teachers cite a principal’s support and 

effectiveness as a leading factor that contributes 

to their decision to remain in teaching 

(Futernick, 2007). Yet, despite the critical role of 
principals, federal investments in school 

leadership, primarily through a school leadership 

program funded at $29.2 million in FY 2010, has 

been minimal. In fact, high-poverty and highminority schools are more likely to be led by 

principals who are weaker on various quality 

measures (including leadership ratings from staff 

and years of experience) than those in lowerpoverty schools (Clotfelter et al., 2007; Horng et 

al., 2009). In a survey by Public Agenda, 69 

percent of principals and 80 percent of 

superintendents describe the leadership training 

offered by schools of education to be ―out of 

touch with the realities of today’s districts‖ 

(Farkas et al., 2001).

What States Can Do to Strengthen Principal Leadership

Our proposal that SEAs use 2 percent of Title II, Part A, funds to improve the effectiveness of school leaders 

recognizes the critical role states can play in this area. Over the past decade, a number of states have 

made significant improvements in how they recruit, prepare, license, place, support, evaluate, and 

compensate principals. For example:

Evaluation. Delaware has been on the cutting edge of reform in the area of administrator evaluations. It is 

the only state that has developed a mandatory statewide process and tool for evaluating school and district 

administrators. After several years of program pilots and studies, the evaluation system is now in place 

throughout the state. The system, known as the Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II), is 

directly aligned with the 2008 revised ISLLC (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium) standards on 

school leadership, which Delaware adopted in 2009. One key component of the evaluation, mandated by 

state law, is student achievement—school and district leaders are assessed on whether their students have 

actually made academic progress (State of Delaware, 2010; Augustine et al., 2009; J. Wilson, e-mail 

communication, March 2, 2010).

Preparation and Licensure. Iowa adopted the Iowa Standards for School Leaders that provide a concrete 

vision for developing leaders who will support improved instruction and student learning. The standards 

serve as the basis for accrediting all principal and superintendent preparation programs in the state. Iowa 

also adopted behavior-based leadership standards and a two-tiered licensure system under which novice 

principals and superintendents receive one year of mentoring support through a state-funded program. 

Principals must pass a summative evaluation to gain their full license at the end of their first year as a 

principal (Augustine et al., 2009).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aritomi, Paola, and Jared Coopersmith (2009). Characteristics of Public School Districts in the United States: 

Results From the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2009–320). Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009320.pdf. 

Augustine, Catherine, Gabriella Gonzalez, Gina Schuyler Ikemoto, Jennifer Russell, Gail Zellman, Louay

Constant, Jane Armstrong, and Jacob Dembosky (2009). Improving School Leadership: The Promise of 

Cohesive Leadership Systems. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG885.pdf.

Bayonas, Holly Gottschall (2009). Guilford County Schools Mission Possible Program: Southern Guilford High School 

Treatment Year 2 (2007–08) (Progress Report). Greensboro: University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 

SERVE Center. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://www.gcsnc.org/depts/mission_

possible/pdf/report/Southern%20Guilford%20High%20Year%202%20Report-Final.pdf. 

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2007). High-Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers 

and Principals (Working Paper 1). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data 

in Education Research (CALDER), Urban Institute. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from 

http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001057_High_Poverty.pdf. 

Daniels, L. (2009). Teacher Equity: Effective Teachers for All Children. Testimony before the House Education 

and Labor Committee. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.tapsystem.org/

newsroom/newsroom.taf?page=features&id=70. 

Darling-Hammond, Linda, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos 

(2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the U.S. and 

Abroad: Technical Report. Dallas: National Staff Development Council and The School Redesign 

Network at Stanford University.

Darling-Hammond, Linda (1997). The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools That Work. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Education Week (2010). Education Counts: Teaching Profession. Bethesda, Md.: Editorial Projects in 

Education Research Center. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from http://www.edcounts.org/.

Elfers, Ana, Tom Stritikus, Kristin Calaff, Kerry Von Esch, Audrey Lucero, Michael Knapp, Margaret

Plecki (2009). Building Systems of Support for Classroom Teachers Working With Second Language Learners: A

Report Prepared for the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession. Seattle: University of Washington, 

College of Education. Retrieved February 14, 2010, from 

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/ELLStudy-July2009.pdf.

Farkas, Steve, Jean Johnson, Ann Duffett, and Tony Foleno (2001). Trying to Stay Ahead of the Game: 

Superintendents and Principals Talk About School Leadership. New York: Public Agenda.

Futernick, Ken (2007). A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers So All Students Can Learn. Sacramento: 

California State University.

Gallimore, Ronald, Bradley Ermerling, William Saunders, and Claude Goldenberg (2009). Moving the 
learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. 

The Elementary School Journal, 109(5):537–553. 

Goldhaber, Dan, and Dominic Brewer (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher 

certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2):129–145.

Goldhaber, Dan, Betheny Gross, and Daniel Player (2009). Teacher Career Paths, Teacher Quality, and 

Persistence in the Classroom: Are Schools Keeping Their Best? CALDER Working Paper No. 29. Washington, 

D.C.: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

Goldhaber, Dan, and Jane Hannaway (2009). Creating a New Teaching Profession. Washington, D.C.: Urban 

Institute Press.

Hanushek, Eric (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2):141–164.

Hanushek, Eric (2009). Teacher deselection. In Dan Goldhaber and Jane Hannaway (eds.), Creating a New 

Teaching Profession. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Retrieved on February 23, 2010, from

http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/Hanushek%202009%20CNTP%20

ch%208.pdf. 

Hanushek, Eric, John Kain, Daniel O’Brien, and Steven Rivkin (2005). The Market for Teacher Quality.

NBER Working Paper No. 11154. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Holcombe, Amy, and Lisa Sonricker (2008, November). The cumulative effect: Raising teacher quality in

high school math classrooms. Mission Possible presentation at the Education Trust National 

Conference. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.guilford.k12.nc.us/depts/mission_

possible/presentations.htm. 

Horng, Eileen, Demetra Kalogrides, and Susanna Loeb. (2009). Principal Preferences and the Unequal 

Distribution of Principals Across Schools. CALDER Working Paper No. 36. Washington, D.C.: National 

Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

Jackson, Clement Kirabo, and Elias Bruegmann (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The 

importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4):85–108.

Jerald, Craig (2002). All Talk, No Action: Putting an End to Out-of-Field Teaching. Washington, D.C.: The 

Education Trust. 

Jerald, Craig (2009). Aligned by Design. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.

Kane, Thomas (2009, October 30). Identifying effective teaching. Presentation made on behalf of the Bill 

and Melinda Gates Foundation at the Center for American Progress. 

Kennedy, Mary (1998). Form and Substance in Inservice Teacher Education. Research Monograph No. 13. 

Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Krueger, Alan, and Diane Whitmore (2001). Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White Achievement 

Gap? Princeton: Princeton University.

Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom (2004). How 

Leadership Influences Student Learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved February 22, 2010, 
from

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachme

nts/PDF/ReviewofResearch-LearningFromLeadership.pdf. 

Marvel, John, Deanna Lyter, Pia Peltola, Gregory Strizek, and Beth Morton (2006). Teacher Attrition and 

Mobility: Results From the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey. (NCES 2007–307). Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Mathers, Carrie, Michelle Oliva, and Sabrina Laine (2008). Improving Instruction Through Effective Teacher 

Eevaluation: Options for States and Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for 

Teacher Quality.

MetLife (2010). The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, Collaborating for Student Success, Part 1: Effective 

Teaching and Leadership. New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Retrieved February 22, 

2010, from http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/contributions/foundation/americanteacher/MetLife_Teacher_Survey_2009_Part_1.pdf. 

Miller, Raegan, Richard Murnane, and John Willett (2007). Do Teacher Absences Impact Student Achievement? 

Longitudinal Evidence From One Urban School District. NBER Working Paper No. 13356. Cambridge, 

Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13356. 

Mitgang, Lee (2003). Beyond the Pipeline: Getting the Principals We Need, Where They Are Needed Most. New 

York: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/

ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/96/df.pdf. 

Mosteller, Frederick (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. Critical Issues for 

Children and Youths, 5(2):113–127.

Murphy, Joseph, Stephen Elliott, Ellen Goldring, and Andrew Porter (2006). Learning-Centered Leadership: A 

Conceptual Foundation. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

National Staff Development Council. Standards for staff development. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from 

http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm.

Odden, Allan, and Jim Kelly (2008). What is SMHC? Madison: Strategic Management of Human Capital.

Papa, Frank, Hamilton Lankford, and James Wyckoff (2003). Hiring Teachers in New York’s Public Schools: 

Can the Principal Make a Difference? Albany: University at Albany, State University of New York. 

Ready, Douglas (2008). Class-Size Reduction: Policy, Politics, and Implications for Equity. New York: Columbia 

University, Teachers College.

Rivkin, Steven, Eric Hanushek, and John Kain (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. 

Econometrica, 73(2):417–458.

Sanders, William, and June Rivers (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic 

achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Toch, Thomas, and Robert Rothman (2008). Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education.

Washington, D.C.: Education Sector. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from 
http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/RushToJudgment_ES_Jan08.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education (2010). Use of Education Data at the Local Level: From Accountability to 

Instructional Improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved February 23, 

2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/use-of-education-data/index.html. 

U.S. Department of Education (2009a). Findings From the 2008–09 Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, 

Part A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/resources.html. 

U.S. Department of Education (2009b). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume 

VIII—Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Final Report. By Beatrice Birman, Andrea Boyle, Kerstin Carlson 

Le Floch, Amy Elledge, Deborah Holtzman, Mengli Song, Kerri Thomson, Kirk Walters, and KwangSuk Yoon. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 

Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from 

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb-final/index.html.

U.S. Department of Education (2009c). A Summary of Highly Qualified Teacher Data. Washington, D.C.: 

Author. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/

resources.html.

U.S. Department of Education (1999). Designing Effective Professional Development: Lessons From the Eisenhower 

Program. By Michael Garet, Beatrice Birman, Andrew Porter, Laura Desimone, Rebecca Herman, and 

Kwang-Suk Yoon. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, 

Planning and Evaluation Service.

Wallace Foundation (2006). Leadership for Learning: Making the Connections Among State, District, and School 

Policies and Practices. New York: Author. Retrieved on February 23, 2010, from 

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/

Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/FINALWallaceCLSPerspective.pdf.

Waters, Tim, Robert Marzano, and Brian McNulty (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of Research Tells 

Us About the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. Aurora, Colo. Mid-Continent Research for 

Education and Learning. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.mcrel.org/products/144/. 

Weisberg, Daniel, Susan Sexton, Jennifer Mulhern, and David Keeling (2009). The Widget Effect: Our 

National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness. New York: The New Teacher 

Project. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect_

execsummary.pdf. 

Yoon, Kwang-Suk, Teresa Duncan, Silvia Lee, Beth Scarloss, and Kathy Shapley (2007). Reviewing the 

Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. (Issues & Answers Report, 

REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational 

Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf.
TEACHER AND LEADER INNOVATION FUND

OUR APPROACH

► Systemic reforms. Competitive grants for states and districts that seek to advance significant 

reforms to improve teacher and leader effectiveness and equitable distribution. 

► Building on Teacher Incentive Fund. Builds on successes and lessons from existing Teacher 

Incentive Fund by connecting compensation reform to broader workforce strategies, including 

improved use of evaluation results for decision-making and site-based staffing that enhances school 

effectiveness.

► Rethinking systems. Supports human-resources reform, such as earlier hiring timelines that 

enable districts to staff high-need and low-performing schools more effectively and efficiently.

The current generation of differentiated 

compensation systems for educators shows 

promising results in terms of teacher 

retention; however, more investment in these 

programs and more research on how they 

can be most effective are needed. Studies of 

two different performance pay programs showed 

an association between improved teacher 

retention rates and compensation programs that 

offer performance bonuses to teachers (Bayonas, 

2009; Chait and Miller, 2009; Glazerman et al., 

2009). Research also suggests that educators are 

willing to participate in these programs when the 

performance ratings are based largely on 

comprehensive evaluations of classroom practice 

and are aligned with classroom coaching and 

other professional development (Toch and 

Rothman, 2008). However, the research to date 

does not highlight the particular features of 

compensation programs that are associated with 

positive outcomes. For example, many such pay 

programs include professional development and 

aligned evaluation in addition to performance 

bonuses. Therefore, more research is needed to 

identify the particular components of alternative 

compensation systems that are associated with 

successful programs.The U.S. Department of 

Education is conducting two evaluations of the 

Teacher Incentive Fund program that will 

contribute to the understanding of how and why 

performance pay programs may lead to changes 

in teaching and learning.

Research shows that some districts—

particularly large urban districts—suffer 

from highly ineffective human-capital 

management systems in which hiring is 

extremely delayed and thus schools are not 

able to hire their first-choice teachers (Levin 

and Quinn, 2003; Levin et al., 2005). A study of 

three large urban districts and one mid-size 

district showed that between approximately 30 

and 60 percent of teaching applicants withdrew 

from the hiring process, often to accept jobs 

with generally wealthier, more suburban districts 

that made offers earlier. The majority of those 

who withdrew (50 to 70 percent) cited the late 

hiring time line in the urban districts as the 

reason they took other jobs. Most importantly, 

the applicants who withdrew from the hiring 

process had significantly higher undergraduate 

GPAs, were 40 percent more likely to have a 

degree in their teaching field, and were 

significantly more likely to have completed 

education coursework than new hires (Levin and 

Quinn, 2003). A similar study of five urban

school districts found that, on average, 40 

percent of school-level vacancies were filled by 

voluntary transfers or excess teachers over 

whom schools had either no choice at all or 
limited choice; many principals reported that they 

did not want to hire many of these teachers 

(Levin et al., 2005). In addition, the centralized 

hiring process in some districts often means that 

newly hired teachers do not know where they will 

work until after they are hired and often have not 

even met the school staff with whom they will be 

working.

When staff at individual schools have more 

direct involvement in the process of hiring 

new teachers and applicants have the 

opportunity to interview directly with 

principals and other school staff, the newly 

hired teachers are more likely to be a better 

fit for the schools and more likely to be 

satisfied in their new jobs (Levin et al., 2005;

Liu, 2005). For example, if newly hired teachers 

are able to engage in personal interviews with the 

staff at a particular school and gain a 

comprehensive and accurate preview of the 

teaching job, they are more likely to be satisfied 

once they are employed (Liu, 2005). “Mutual 

consent” (or “school-based”) hiring is a 

promising approach to the decentralized hiring of 

teachers under which individual schools have 

more authority and autonomy to recruit, 

interview, and hire new staff, and candidates have 

a greater voice in choosing where they will work. 

This approach has the potential to produce highfunctioning school teams that are more likely to 

work together to improve student learning. 

However, implementation of such an approach is 

a sea change in operating procedures for districts, 

and takes a tremendous amount of coordination 

across schools (Thomas and King, 2007). 

Revamped human resource departments and 

management systems must help lead and support 

such efforts.

The recent experience of some large school 

districts in making dramatic changes in their 

human capital management systems shows 

that improved hiring practices are possible.

For example, four of the nation’s largest 

districts—Long Beach, Chicago, New York City, 

and Fairfax County, Virginia—have reformed 

their human capital systems to enhance their 

ability to efficiently hire teachers and school 

leaders (Strategic Management of Human 

Capital, 2008). All four districts have increased 

their use of technology in order to improve the 

efficiency and accuracy of their recruitment and 

screening procedures (Strategic Management of 

Human Capital, 2008). 

Tenure and licensure are important 

milestones in educators’ careers, but states 

and districts do not always take performance 

into account in making these decisions. Only 

15 states require evidence of a teacher’s 

effectiveness when granting relatively new 

teachers a professional license after the 

probationary or provisional licensure period 

(National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010). A 

recent report noted that 47 states award tenure 

“virtually automatically” (National Council on 

Teacher Quality, 2010). This should be a 

concern to all educators and policymakers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bayonas, Holly Gottschall (2009). Guilford County Schools Mission Possible Program: Southern Guilford High 

School Treatment Year 2 (2007–08) (Progress Report). Greensboro: University of North Carolina at 

Greensboro, SERVE Center. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from 

http://www.gcsnc.org/depts/mission_

possible/pdf/report/Southern%20Guilford%20High%20Year%202%20Report-Final.pdf. 

Chait, Robin, and Raegan Miller (2009). Paying Teachers for Results: A Summary of Research to Inform the Design 

of Pay-for-Performance Programs for High-Poverty Schools. Washington, D.C.: Center for American 

Progress. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/

pdf/performance_pay.pdf. 

Glazerman, Steven, Allison McKie, and Nancy Carey (2009). An Evaluation of the Teacher Advancement 

Program (TAP) in Chicago: Year One Impact Report. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica. Retrieved on 

February 23, 2010, from http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/pdfs/education/TAP_rpt.pdf. 

Goldhaber, Dan, and Emily Anthony (2003). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. New York: 

Columbia University, Teachers College, Institute for Urban and Minority Education, ERIC 

Clearinghouse on Urban Education.

Levin, Jessica, Jennifer Mulhern, and Joan Schunck (2005). Unintended Consequences: The Case for Reforming 

the Staffing Rules in Urban Teachers Union Contracts. New York: The New Teacher Project.

Levin, Jessica, and Meredith Quinn (2003). Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of 

Urban Classrooms. New York: The New Teacher Project.

Levine, Arthur (2006). Educating School Teachers. Washington, D.C.: The Education Schools Project.

Liu, Edward (2005, April). Hiring, Job Satisfaction, and the Fit Between New Teachers and Their Schools. Paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. 

National Council on Teacher Quality (2010). 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook: National Summary,

Washington D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality. 

Strategic Management of Human Capital (2008). Strategic Management of Human Capital: Cross-Case Analysis.

Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. 

Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.smhc-cpre.org/download/34/. 

Thomas, David, and Caroline King (2007). Reinventing human resources at the school district of 

Philadelphia. In Stacey Childress, Richard Elmore, Allen Grossman, and Susan Moore Johnson 

(eds.), Managing School Districts for High Performance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press.

Toch, Thomas, and Robert Rothman (2008). Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education.

Washington, D.C.: Education Sector. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from 

http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/RushToJudgment_ES_Jan08.pdf. 
This page intentionally left blank.
TEACHER AND LEADER PATHWAYS

OUR APPROACH

► Significant investment in effective preparation. Competitive grants to support the creation and 

expansion of high-performing pathways that prepare teachers and school leaders to succeed in 

persistently low-performing schools.

► High standards for programs. Requires evidence-based practices such as clinical experiences and 

tracking of graduates’ performance over time.

► New emphasis on principals. Major new investment in recruiting and preparing principals able 

to turn around and transform persistently low-achieving schools. 

► Focus on district and state needs. To ensure that teacher and leader preparation programs meet 

the needs of high-need schools and districts, provides grants to districts and states, which may 

partner with institutions of higher education or nonprofits. 

Many teacher preparation programs—

traditional and alternative routes—are not 

preparing educators to succeed in today’s 

classrooms. Many teachers are ill prepared by 

their teacher education programs (Levine, 2006). 

For example, teacher preparation programs 

frequently fail to provide candidates with the 

competencies that principals and districts say 

teachers need, and many programs fail to provide 

prospective teachers with high-quality and 

intensive clinical experiences (Levine, 2006; 

Walsh and Jacobs, 2007). One survey of teacher 

education alumni found that 62 percent who 

responded reported that their pre-service teacher 

training in schools of education did not prepare 

them for “classroom realities” (Levine, 2006). 

Many teacher preparation programs are not 

highly selective and do not set high 

standards for completion (Hess, 2001; Walsh 

and Jacobs, 2007). A study of 49 alternative 

certification programs across 11 states found that 

about one-quarter of the programs accept all, or 

nearly all, of their applicants (Walsh and Jacobs, 

2007). Other research shows that average SAT 

scores of college graduates who passed 

certification exams in order to teach the 

elementary grades, special education, or physical 

education were far below the average SAT scores 

of all college graduates (Gitomer, 2007). 

Although several states, including Florida, 

Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, have 

implemented or are beginning to launch 

statewide efforts to track the effectiveness of 

graduates of teacher preparation programs, this 

information is not yet in widespread use for 

improving teacher preparation programs 

(Loadman, 2007; National Council on Teacher 

Quality, 2010; Noell et al., 2008; Matus, 2009).

While teacher preparation programs—both 

traditional and alternative—often fail to 

adequately prepare new teachers, promising 

models and program components do exist

(Berry et al., 2008; Boyd et al., 2009; Levine, 

2006). Recent research suggests that pathways 

into teaching may be more effective when they 

focus on the work in the classroom and provide 

opportunities for teachers to study what they will 

be doing as first-year teachers. For example, 

teachers who came from programs in which they 

engaged in actual teaching practices, or engaged 

in a “capstone project” – often resulting in a 

portfolio of work that was produced in K–12 
classrooms during the pre-service education 

component – were more likely to produce 

positive student achievement gains during their 

first year of teaching than were teachers who did 

not engage in these learning experiences (Boyd et 

al., 2009). 

There is an urgent need to prepare more 

principals and school leadership teams to be 

equipped for the particular challenges of 

turning around and transforming persistently 

low-performing schools. Research indicates 

that low-performing organizations are more likely 

to improve with the right leader at the helm 

(Kowal et al., 2009). In addition, principals who 

lead turnaround efforts need specific 

competencies that are not necessarily the same as 

those required by principals leading schools that 

have a history of continual success, making it 

difficult for districts to find the leaders needed to 

successfully transform persistently lowperforming schools (Kowal et al., 2009). 

Leadership preparation is most promising 

when it is: aligned with leadership standards; 

focuses on instruction; uses selective and 

purposeful recruitment; includes a strong 

clinical component with school-based 

internships; and integrates school-based 

experiences with classroom reading and 

discussion (Augustine et al., 2009; DarlingHammond et al., 2007; New Leaders for New 

Schools, 2009). Programs such as the University 

of Virginia’s School Turnaround Specialist 

Program and the New York City Leadership 

Academy have demonstrated promising 

approaches to recruiting and preparing leaders 

with the competencies needed to lead dramatic 

improvements in student performance in 

struggling schools.

Examples of programs to develop and prepare 

transformational principals include: 

► The New York City Leadership Academy, a 

nonprofit organization that provides preservice preparation and in-service support to 

increase the supply and quality of NYC 

principals. Each year its graduates fill 20 to 

40 percent of NYC’s principal vacancies. The 

Leadership Academy's preparation program 

for aspiring principals includes: (1) an intense 

summer experience involving a 

comprehensive school turn-around simulation; 

(2) a 10-month residency under the guidance 

of a successful mentor principal; and (3) a 

planning summer that supports graduates as 

they transition into school leadership positions 

(Corcoran, Schwartz, and Weinstein, 2009; J. 

Lewis, e-mail communication, March 3, 2010).

► The University of Virginia School Turnaround 

Specialist Program utilizes a systemic 

approach to change by working with school, 

district, and state-level leadership teams in 

order to help them build the internal capacity 

necessary to support and sustain effective 

school turnarounds. Through several intensive 

summer sessions, a cohort of principals, along 

with the district-based teams and, when 

possible, state-based teams, on which they 

depend, prepare to turn around a struggling 

school. Once placed in their turnaround 

schools, the principals receive on-going 

support, including regular visits by turnaround 

experts and a mid-year two-day session with 

their cohort peers for reflection, sharing, and 

midterm corrections. The data indicate that 

most schools led by program graduates 

demonstrate strong and sustained studentachievement gains, measured by the 

percentage of students scoring at the 

"proficient" level on the state assessments 

(University of Virginia School Turnaround 

Specialist Program, 2008).
Examples of teacher pathways:

► An Urban Teacher Residency Program (UTR). UTRs are teacher preparation programs that combine 

master’s level coursework with a rigorous full-year classroom apprenticeship to a trained mentor 

teacher. UTRs work to meet district needs for teaching candidates, often focusing on recruiting 

candidates of color and high-need areas such as math, science, English Learners, and special 

education. Program participants train in cohorts, and commit to teaching for at least three years within 

the district. Early indications show that teacher residency model is promising. Graduates of residency 

programs stay in teaching longer than the average teacher. After three years, 85 percent of Academy of 

Urban School Leadership graduates in Chicago and 86 percent of Boston Teacher Residency graduates 

are still teaching. In addition, 98 percent of Boettcher Teachers Program graduates in metro-Denver are 

still teaching (Berry et al., 2008; Urban Teacher Residency United, 2010.). 

► A university-based teacher education program that incorporates attributes associated with effective 

programs and meets specific district needs. This approach is exemplified by Alverno College in 

Milwaukee. The education division of Alverno College enrolls approximately 350 undergraduate 

students and 130 graduate students who are preparing to become teachers; most Alverno-trained 

teachers move into jobs in the Milwaukee Public Schools. The overall five-year teacher retention rate for 

Alverno graduates is 85 percent. Liberal arts faculty are heavily involved in teaching in the Alverno 

education division and the college has an “outcome- or ability-based curriculum” in which all teachereducation candidates must demonstrate mastery of certain knowledge and skills. The program requires 

extensive fieldwork that involves working and observing in schools prior to the student teaching 

experience, and all students do their student teaching in at least one urban school (Levine, 2006).

► A partnership with an alternative-certification route, such as Teach for America (TFA) or one of the 

Teaching Fellow programs affiliated with The New Teacher Project. For example, the New York City 

Teaching Fellows program is an alternative-certification route that recruits mid-career professionals, 

recent college graduates, and retirees to teach in New York City’s hardest-to-staff schools and in some 

of the hardest-to-staff subjects and specialty areas. Fellows complete a short but intensive pre-service 

training program during the summer that involves hands-on teaching in a New York City classroom, 

master’s degree coursework, and “Student Achievement Framework (SAF)” sessions during which 

Fellows learn instructional design and classroom-management skills from an experienced teacher. 

Fellows who complete this training are eligible to be hired in the NYC public schools. While teaching, 

each Fellow works toward a master’s degree in education, specializing in the subject that he or she 

teaches, which is subsidized by the NYC Department of Education program. Fellows have continuing 

access to online resources through the program, and they also receive support from school-based 

mentors and constructive feedback from monthly classroom observations by a university field 

consultant. More than 9,000 Fellows currently teach in New York City’s public schools and comprise 11 

percent of all teachers in the city, including 26 percent of all math teachers and 22 percent of all 

special education teachers. The program successfully attracts a diverse teaching staff—41 percent of 

Fellows who began the program in 2009 identified themselves as black or Latino (NYC Teaching 

Fellows, 2010; L. Reu, e-mail communication, March 2, 2010).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Augustine, Catherine, Gabriella Gonzalez, Gina Schuyler Ikemoto, Jennifer Russell, Gail Zellman, Louay 

Constant, Jane Armstrong, and Jacob Dembosky (2009). Improving School Leadership: The Promise of 

Cohesive Leadership Systems. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG885.pdf.

Berry, Barnett, Diana Montgomery, Rachel Curtis, Mindy Hernandez, Judy Wurtzel, and Jon Snyder 

(2008). Creating and Sustaining Urban Teacher Residencies: A New Way to Recruit, Prepare, and Retain Effective 

Teachers in High-Needs Districts. Chapel Hill, N.C.: The Center for Teaching Quality, and the Aspen 

Institute. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from 

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_

storage_01/0000019b/80/3e/b8/0e.pdf. 

Boyd, Donald, Pamela Grossman, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff (2009). 

Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4):416–440. 

Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://epa.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/4/416. 

Corcoran, Sean, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Meryle Weinstein (2009). The New York City Aspiring Principals 

Program: A School-Level Evaluation. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy. Retrieved 

February 22, 2010, from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/003/852/APP.pdf. 

Darling-Hammond, Linda, Michelle LaPointe, Debra Meyerson, and Margaret Terry Orr (2007). Preparing 

School Leaders for a Changing World: Executive Summary. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Stanford 

Educational Leadership Institute. 

Gitomer, Drew (2007). Teacher Quality in a Changing Policy Landscape: Improvements in the Teacher Pool.

Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Hess, Frederick (2001). Tear Down This Wall: The Case for a Radical Overhaul of Teacher Certification. 

Washington, D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute.

Kowal, Julie, Emily Ayscue Hassel, and Bryan Hassel (2009). Successful School Turnarounds: Seven Steps for 

District Leaders. Naperville, Ill.: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. 

Retrieved on February 23, 2010, from

http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept09.pdf. 

Levine, Arthur (2006). Educating School Teachers. Washington, D.C.: The Education Schools Project.

Matus, Ron (2009, November 20). St. Petersburg Times, “State rates teacher prep programs.”

National Council on Teacher Quality (2010). 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook: National Summary,

Washington D.C.: Author.

New Leaders for New Schools (2009). Principal Effectiveness: A New Principalship to Drive Student Achievement, 

Teacher Effectiveness, and School Turnarounds. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.nlns.org/

documents/uef/principal_effectiveness_nlns.pdf.

Noell, George, Bethany Porter, R. Maria Patt, and Amanda Dahir (2008). Value Added Assessment of Teacher 

Preparation in Louisiana, 2004–2005 to 2006–2007. New Orleans: Louisiana State University, 

Department of Psychology. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from 
http://www.tulane.edu/cowen_institute/LAValueAdded.htm. 

NYC Teaching Fellows (2010). Information retrieved January 26, 2010, from 

http://www.nycteachingfellows.org. 

Urban Teacher Residency United (2010). Information retrieved March 3, 2010, from 

http://www.utrunited.org.

University of Virginia School Turnaround Specialist Program (2008). 2008 Annual Report Excerpts.

Charlottesville: University of Virginia. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from 

http://www.darden.virginia.edu/html/standard.aspx?menu_id=626&id=19294&styleid=3.

Walsh, Kate, and Sandi Jacobs (2007). Alternative Certification Isn’t Alternative. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. 

Fordham Institute and the National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved on February 23, 2010, 

from http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/Alternative_Certification_Isnt_

Alternative_20071124023109.pdf. 
This page intentionally left blank.