Author(s): Koppich, Julia E; White, Evan; Kim, Simon; Lauck, Marcy; Bookman, Noah; Venezia, Andrea | Abstract: Reports on a session of the PACE conference held on February 1, 2019, that brought together experts to discuss a set of essential questions California must consider as it develops a new coordinated data system.Governor Gavin Newsom’s budget proposal for 2019–2020 includes $10 million to develop a statewide longitudinal data system—including early education, K–12, and higher education institutions as well as health and human services agencies— to better track student outcomes and improve alignment of the education system to workforce needs. California’s lack of a coherent education database serves as a substantial barrier to fulfilling the state’s continuous improvement policy goal and ensuring all students have access to robust learning opportunities to enable them to be successful in school and beyond. This brief reports on a session of the PACE conference held on February 1, 2019, that brought together experts to discuss a set of essential questions California must consider as it develops a new coordinated data system.This work has been supported, in part, by the University of California Multicampus Research Programs and Initiatives grantnMRP-19-600774.

Recommended Citation Humphrey, D. C., Koppich, J., Lavadenz, M., Marsh, J., O’Day, J., Plank, D., Stokes, L., & Hall, M. (2018, February). How stakeholder engagement fuels improvement efforts in three California school districts [Report]. Policy Analysis for California Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/how-stakeholderengagement-fuels-improvement-efforts-three-california-school-districts

This article examines the shift in the locus of decision-making authority across more than 25 years of policy efforts to improve teaching effectiveness. Previously the province of local government, states assumed the lion's share of authority for teaching policy during the 1980s and 1990s. As states and the federal government rose to education policy dominance, powerful extragovernmental actors-the business community in the 1980s and 1990s, philanthropic foundations in the last decade-captured much of the policy conversation and put their respective stamps on the teacher policy agenda. Their influence has rivaled, arguably at times eclipsed, that of elected government officials. This article explores this still-evolving phenomenon. We find that the current federal government-foundation nexus seems to be strengthening. Although it is too soon to tell whether this relationship is permanent or ephemeral, it is clear that its impact on state and local teaching policy is already significant.

Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

A s educators and policymakers continue to search for strategies to improve public education, one approach receiving attention is the use of financial incentives tied to performance to compensate educators. Advocates of such incentives argue that they will motivate educators to improve their practices and attract more individuals to the profession, while detractors are concerned that such strategies negatively affect morale and collegiality. In the 2007–2008 school year, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) implemented the Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program (SPBP). With funding from The Fund for Public Schools and the National Center on Performance Incentives, researchers from the RAND Corporation and Vanderbilt University independently evaluated the implementation and effects of this program. The researchers conducted this evaluation from February 2009 through March 2011, using both qualitative and quantitative data and designed their analysis to take advantage of the program’s experimental design. They found that, although the program was implemented fairly and smoothly, it did not improve student achievement or overall school performance and did not affect teachers’ reported attitudes and behaviors. Given these findings, the researchers went on to examine potential explanations for the lack of effects and to identify implications for pay-forperformance policies in general.

For three school years, from 2007 to 2010, about 200 high-needs New York City public schools participated in the Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program, whose broad objective was to improve student performance through school-based financial incentives. An independent analysis of test scores, surveys, and interviews found that the program did not improve student achievement, perhaps because it did not motivate change in educator behavior.

Engaging teacher unions in the substantive work of redesigning teacher pay is an essential precondition to making progress.

In 2004, the announcement of Denver's path-breaking ProComp ignited a fervor around new forms of teacher pay. A cooperative effort of the Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, ProComp broke from tradition. Rather than paying teachers on the basis of years of experience and college credits, Denver would now pay teachers for added knowledge and skills, teaching in hard-to-staff schools and subjects, good performance reviews, and improved student scores on Colorado's annual achievement tests. ProComp opened the compensation floodgates. In 2006, the federal government launched the $99 million annual Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), which allowed states and school districts to compete for funds to design and implement new forms of teacher pay. The TIF appropriation quadrupled in 2010. Individual states--Minnesota, Texas, and Florida among them--also climbed on the bandwagon, investing millions of dollars in rethinking teacher compensation. Dozens of local school districts followed suit. New ways of paying teachers were hailed as significant strategies for improving education because proponents claimed they would enhance teacher practice, attract and retain teachers in low-performing schools and in shortage subject areas, and raise student achievement. Experience with new forms of teacher pay suggests that we still have much to learn about the efficacy of this strategy. Can dollars alone produce changes in teachers' practice that lead to improved student achievement? Will money encourage well-qualified teachers to choose assignments in challenging schools and high-need subjects? How much money is necessary to seed and sustain change? Answers to these questions likely will come with time and experience. However, there is an answer to one central question about using teacher compensation as an education improvement strategy: New pay plans can't be summarily imposed on teachers. Districts and states that have tried this tactic met with massive resistance, and their pay plans foundered. Experience with Denver, TIF grantees, and other compensation programs has taught us that teachers need to be part of the process of development, and they need to own the pay plan that emerges. Teacher unions play a critical role here. They can shape teachers' views about new forms of compensation. Casting a critical eye on the myriad proposals swirling about them, unions can serve as crucial partners in designing and implementing new pay programs, or they can apply the brakes and stop plans from moving from paper to practice. The role of unions in reforming teacher pay is changing. Why are they now feeling the heat to reconsider the longstanding way of paying teachers? What are the positions of the two national teacher unions with regard to new forms of pay? How have local school districts and their teacher unions responded to calls to alter salary structures? And what have we learned about what it takes to engage unions in designing new, more robust compensation programs? THE SINGLE SALARY SCHEDULE Most U.S. teachers are paid on what is called the single salary schedule. An artifact of the civil service system, the single salary schedule awards increases on the basis of years of experience and earned college credits. First introduced in Denver and Des Moines in 1921, the single salary schedule became widespread following World War II, when teachers were in short supply. The unfair and discriminatory pay practices prevalent in most school districts hampered recruiting new teachers. Elementary teachers, most of whom were women, were paid less than their high school counterparts, most of whom were men. Black teachers were paid less than white teachers. Nepotism often played an open role in determining salaries. The single salary system equalized pay. It removed politics, race, and gender from the process and made teacher pay both more equitable and more predictable. …