Principal turnover in the United States has become a pressing issue, with as many as 18% exiting schools annually, associated with detrimental effects like reduced student achievement and increased teacher turnover. While previous studies have focused on predictive models assuming a single type of exiting principal, this research delved into the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the 2008–09 Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS) from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to identify distinct categories among exiting principals: "Satisfied" and "Disaffected." Satisfied principals, comprising around two-thirds of exits, displayed high satisfaction, influence, and minimal school climate issues. In contrast, Disaffected principals, about one-third of exits, reported lower influence, negative attitudes, and more climate problems. Specifically, Disaffected principals felt restricted in setting curriculum and standards, lacked enthusiasm for their role, and often considered transferring out. The study highlights that universal approaches to address turnover might not effectively target the Disaffected minority, suggesting the need for tailored strategies to combat principal turnover.

Researchers conducted an experiment to determine if incentives could improve low-income students' attendance in tutoring programs provided through Supplemental Education Services (SEdS). Three groups of 5th-8th graders were formed: one offered a $100 reward for regular attendance, another receiving certificates of recognition, and a control group without incentives. Surprisingly, the monetary reward didn't increase attendance, while the certificate group attended 40% more sessions than the control. This contrasts with past studies showing monetary incentives for improved test scores as ineffective, suggesting that mere rewards may not enhance skills without additional support. The certificate approach proved cost-effective, costing $9 per student versus $100 for the monetary incentive. However, wider implementation's effectiveness might diminish due to students' varied perceptions of recognition's value, related to existing academic achievements or repeated rewards. The study's success suggests non-monetary incentives are effective and inexpensive. Policymakers and educators seeking to boost student participation in underutilized programs should consider these findings, emphasizing nuanced research into varying incentives' effectiveness and cost-efficiency to motivate student engagement. Despite these promising results, a comprehensive solution requires a deeper understanding of how different incentives affect diverse student populations and their sustained impact over time.

A new study delves into teacher perceptions of financial incentives within the context of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program, examining how rewards influence teacher behaviors and participation. It explores data from a TIF-supported program offering rewards for various achievements. Research shows diverse reactions among teachers based on payout sizes, valuing fairness, linkages to effort, and performance. Larger awards elicited more positive responses and influenced ongoing participation. However, the findings imply these incentives might draw high-performing teachers, raising questions about their impact on reshaping the teacher workforce. Teachers emphasized the importance of fair, linked-to-performance payouts to sustain their engagement in the program. The study highlights crucial design elements for incentive programs, advocating for attainable maximum awards, fairness considerations, credible performance measures, transparent eligibility criteria, and clear payout rules. It urges further research using representative data to comprehend teachers' responses to different incentive combinations over time, essential for refining educator incentive programs.

Teacher evaluation, driven by philanthropic support and federal mandates, heavily incorporates classroom observations in most states, where they carry significant weight—contributing to dismissals in 22 states and the District of Columbia. Despite their prevalence, educators disagree on observation protocols, frequency, announcement practices, and assessment tools. Many states opt for standards-based observations, recently endorsed through research like the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study, albeit these assessments were primarily designed to gauge instructional standards rather than predict student outcomes, displaying weak correlations with achievement. The concern over these observations lies in their demanding nature, with numerous scoring criteria and estimated costs of $3 billion annually for nationwide implementation. Calls for innovation in observations, aiming for speed and efficacy, sparked validation studies for the Rapid Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness (RATE). In seven experiments, RATE outperformed benchmarks, accurately identifying effective teachers in just 20 minutes of a lesson using a concise rubric after minimal training. It showcased higher reliability and effectiveness compared to instruments reviewed in the MET study, potentially offering cost-effective, efficient evaluations and early support for struggling teachers, benefitting student learning.

The push for pay-for-performance teacher salaries could revolutionize education by valuing teaching as specialized talent. This shift, prompted by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and supporters, aims to reward exceptional teaching through test score-based incentives. However, this transition could significantly raise education expenses and transform the teacher compensation structure. Drawing parallels with Marvin Miller's revolutionizing baseball players' wages, the switch from uniform teacher salaries to valuing exceptional talent may yield unpredictable effects. Recognizing and promoting exceptional teachers could mimic how colleges offer star professors premium wages. Yet, envisioning a system where teacher talent determines compensation might generate brutal competition, creating substantial salary disparities among educators. While this approach celebrates exceptional teachers, it's uncertain how this would impact overall teacher wages and the teaching profession as a whole. Considering the historical rise of wages in specialized fields, proponents of this shift may not have accounted for the potential salary demands that valuing teacher talent could create.

The debate on teacher tenure lacks concrete quantitative evidence regarding its impact on teacher labor markets or student achievement. Stories of tenure's effects exist, but research is scarce due to the absence of a control group—every public school operates with some form of tenure. However, variations in tenure policies across states, particularly in probationary period lengths, offer insight. Researchers show that longer probation periods correlate with higher starting teacher salaries, especially in districts with collective bargaining. This is because job security as a benefit leads to teachers demanding higher wages in exchange for increased uncertainty. California, with a two-year probationary period, may face salary pressures, especially in districts bordering states like Nevada with different tenure policies. Extending the probation period might lead to salary hikes in certain districts to attract teachers. However, it's uncertain how this change might influence who enters teaching, district responses in terms of evaluation or training, or its overall impact. Further research on tenure's effects on teacher labor markets is necessary to better inform this significant policy debate.

For nearly three decades, PACE has facilitated discussions on California's education policies by integrating academic research into key policy challenges. Traditionally, this involved publishing policy briefs, organizing seminars, and producing the annual 'Conditions of Education in California' report, offering comprehensive data and analysis on the state's education system. The launch of "Conditions of Education in California" as a blog marks a shift to engage a wider audience and enable ongoing updates. This platform, authored by PACE-affiliated researchers across California, aims to share new data, compelling research findings, and insights on current legislation and policies. The objective remains fostering informed discussions on education policy challenges in California, now extending the conversation to policymakers, educators, and citizens. This inclusive dialogue is crucial to drive the necessary policy understanding and momentum for improving the state's education system.

"Getting Down to Facts" is a new research initiative commissioned by Governor Schwarzenegger's Committee on Education Excellence, state Democratic leaders, and Superintendent Jack O'Connell. Led by Susanna Loeb, a Stanford Graduate School of Education Professor and PACE codirector, this project seeks to explore California's school finance and governance systems. Its objective is to provide comprehensive insights essential for assessing the effectiveness of potential reforms. The initiative addresses three key questions: the current state of school finance and governance, optimizing existing resources for improved student outcomes, and evaluating the need for additional resources to meet educational goals. The studies from this project are expected to be available by January 2007.