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.

A new study focuses on the anticipated advantages of charter schools compared to public schools, particularly in terms of teacher autonomy and accountability. While the charter school system was envisioned to provide educators with more freedom and responsibility, this research sought to verify these assumptions. Analyzing teacher survey data, the study found that teachers in charter schools indeed experienced more autonomy than those in public schools. However, there was no significant disparity in how accountable they felt. Interestingly, within the charter school realm, teachers in schools run by Educational Management Organizations (EMOs) reported less autonomy compared to teachers in independent charter schools, with a parallel level of accountability. The research suggests that excessive administrative red tape, especially prevalent in public schools and EMO-run charters, may hinder teacher autonomy. This raises concerns about the accountability aspect of the charter school arrangement and calls for improvements in both sectors. Public schools might benefit from reducing unnecessary administrative burdens to enhance teacher autonomy, while charter schools, especially EMO-run ones, need to address issues hindering teacher independence and accountability fulfillment.

Michael W. Kirst discusses the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the CA overhaul of accountability based on local control of education policy. The federal law requires multiple measures for accountability, including some with state choice. Databases for English learners will change significantly. Federal requirements for teacher evaluation will be deregulated significantly. State assessments are all over the place and will be hard to summarize. California is building an integrated federal/state/local accountability system that includes 23 metrics, primarily for local use in Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) that focus on improving budget strategy. Longitudinal data bases from the past will be difficult to integrate with these policy shifts.

Over the past two decades, charter schools emerged as part of school reform efforts, providing parental choice in education. However, research highlights that despite their intended autonomy and innovation, charter schools have often failed to offer sustainable working conditions for teachers. A new study, focusing on a Los Angeles charter school organization, delves into teachers' experiences leading to unionization in 2005, aiming to understand why choice-based environments pushed educators towards collective action. Teachers described a vibrant yet exhausting professional setting, lacking job security and facing longer working hours compared to district teachers. Despite initial collaboration with school leaders, teachers felt unheard about their working conditions, prompting unionization discussions. Over 60% of teachers voted for a union, desiring sustainable working conditions and a voice in decision-making. However, the governing board resisted, perceiving the union as an impediment to their flexibility. The study emphasizes the struggle of charter school teachers for equitable working conditions and the significance of their collective actions in achieving sustainability. This research remains pertinent in understanding charter school challenges, as highlighted by recent unionization attempts and legal disputes in Los Angeles charter schools.

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.

Educational institutions are increasingly revamping teacher evaluations, integrating student performance measures and classroom observations. LAUSD’s shift in evaluation systems and Vergara v. California’s ruling against certain teacher employment statutes spotlight this transformation. However, research across six urban districts reveals shifts in the role of value-added measures in decision making. Principals find value-added data problematic due to its infrequency, complexity, and limited applicability to teachers in untested subjects. Instead, they value the transparency, timeliness, and specificity of teacher observation systems, which provide comprehensive insights into teaching practices for all educators. While acknowledging differences between value-added and observation systems, research also emphasizes the advantages of teacher observation systems in informing timely and specific decisions. Despite concerns about observation systems’ time-intensive nature and the recent legal implications, these frameworks offer enhanced transparency and actionable feedback, potentially compensating for the limitations of value-added measures. Overall, the rise of observation systems signifies a positive step in leveraging data for informed human capital decisions in education.

National concern persists regarding teacher education improvement, yet consensus on effective strategies remains elusive. Emphasis lies on enhancing preservice training and professional development, requiring evidence-based approaches. However, influential studies, like the National Council on Teacher Quality's critique, lack solid evidence, relying on document analysis instead of direct assessment. Impactful teacher education research should exhibit systematic classroom effects, blending quantitative and qualitative methods on a significant scale for broader applicability. However, an analysis of 196 articles from leading teacher education journals in 2012 reveals a limited focus on the impact of teacher education or professional development on teachers and students. While these studies often showed positive outcomes, their scale and depth were insufficient to influence policy. To facilitate informed policymaking, collaboration between education bodies and policymakers is vital to identify crucial research questions. Ensuring adequate funding for comprehensive, large-scale studies is essential, given current limitations. Encouraging diverse expertise within research teams, spanning methodology and diverse backgrounds, can enrich insights and contribute to comprehensive policy formulation.

Policymakers aim to enhance educator quality by imposing licensure requirements, yet a recent study in Educational Policy challenges the effectiveness of these barriers. Traditionally-certified teachers, despite extensive training, showed no significant advantage over alternatively-certified teachers in improving student achievement. Surprisingly, higher performance on licensure exams correlated with more effective teaching, and alternatively-certified teachers scored notably higher on these tests, attracting individuals with stronger academic capabilities. This suggests that current licensure screens might not accurately predict classroom success. Both traditional and alternative routes to teaching have pros and cons, but existing barriers exclude effective teachers and admit ineffective ones. Policymakers face two options: refining licensure screens for better prediction or reducing hurdles and allowing local school leaders to make hiring decisions. As no clear method exists to identify the best teachers beforehand, a move toward more flexibility in hiring might offer a pragmatic solution.

The Student Success Act of 2012 in California prompts a restructure of student support services in higher education. A new study evaluating a guidance program at South Texas College offers insights for California policymakers and nationwide. This program aimed to aid students struggling in entry-level math courses, a common hurdle in community colleges. It involved Beacon Volunteers giving brief presentations in math classes about available campus services. The evaluation, using random assignment, showed a 30% increase in tutoring center visits and a 20% drop in math class withdrawals. While overall pass rates didn't significantly rise, part-time students benefited with a 10% increase in pass rates. The study highlights the effectiveness of brief, in-classroom interventions and suggests lessons for researchers and practitioners, emphasizing the feasibility of whole-class randomization, the need for more tutoring center research, and the scalability and affordability of such interventions. It underscores the impact of providing information directly to students before they require assistance, offering valuable insights for educational practices.