107
W HO S TAYS
IN
T EACHING
AND
W HY: A R EVIEW
OF THE
L ITERATURE
ON
T EACHER R ETENTION
Carroll, T., Fulton, K., Abercrombie, K., & Yoon, I. (2004). Fifty Years after Brown v. Board of Education; A Two-Tiered Education System. Washington, D.C.: The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. In this report, writers conclude that it is not fair to hold all students to the same high standards when students who typically need the most help to succeed in school – those in high-poverty areas – have far less adequate educational facilities and resources than do their peers in lowerpoverty areas. In order to reach this conclusion, staff of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) analyzed responses from 3,336 teachers randomly surveyed by the Peter Harris Research Group for Lou Harris in CA, WI, and NY. Surveys, distributed in the spring and fall of 2002, asked teachers to “describe what really happens in their buildings” (p. 10), and compared teachers’ responses in schools that serve high numbers of children at risk (“high-risk schools”) with those of teachers in schools serving low numbers of children at risk (low-risk schools). Carroll concludes that, across the three states and compared with their colleagues in lowrisk schools, teachers in high-risk schools reported more uncredentialed teachers, “inadequate physical facilities; …inadequate textbooks and materials for students to use in class or to take home; inadequate computers and limited internet access” (p. 5). The recommendations based on survey findings include acknowledging unequal school conditions and changing funding formulas; better support for well-qualified teachers and principals; and holding public officials accountable for educational equity. Community Training and Assistance Center. (2004). Catalyst for change: Pay for performance in Denver. Boston, MA. This report on the four-year pilot of Pay for Performance (PFP) in Denver, CO, provides detailed information on the PFP plan; a quantitative analysis of the impact of PFP on student achievement at the 16 pilot schools; survey and qualitative data on the impact of the plan on stakeholders; and recommendations and implications based on this research. The plan’s primary goal is to improve student achievement through the attainment of teacher-developed objectives. These objectives are focused in increasing student achievement, and, if achieved, are rewarded with increased pay. The program evaluation finds that the impact of PFP on student achievement in pilot schools varies. At the elementary level, NCE scores on math and reading were lower than scores at control schools. At the middle school level, NCE scores on writing, math, and reading were higher than scores at control schools. Finally, at the high school level, NCE scores on language, math, and reading tests were higher than at control schools. All of these differences are statistically significant. Cohen, D. K., & Murnane, R. J. (1985). The merits of merit pay. The Public Interest, 3-30. In this piece, Murnane and Cohen investigate both the history of merit pay and a variety of merit pay plans that were in place in the early 1980s. They identify three challenges to merit pay plans: finding a clear way to decide which teachers deserve merit pay; devising strategies to minimize conflict amongst teachers; and being able to navigate the lack of connection between measures of teacher quality and student achievement. The authors present detailed case studies of the merit pay plans in three districts, including information from other districts where they gathered data. They cite, as the most important implication of their research, the fact that merit pay plans in high-