When parents have some form of school choice, schools should want to hire and keep teachers who help them attract students. Thus, choice may affect how schools structure teaching jobs and teachers ' pay. This paper investigates whether schools that face choice-based incentives actually do create teaching jobs that are different. Using data on traditional forms of choice (Tiebout choice, choice of private schools) and a new survey of charter school teachers, I find evidence that suggests that choice makes schools

Unlike previous research on teacher decisions in the United States, this paper looks at not only the timing of exits from the teaching profession, but also the reasons for these exits. Contrary to the common notion that teaching exits are primarily the result of teachers being “lured ” away from teaching by the attractiveness of non!teaching job alternatives, this analysis find that approximately sixty percent of all exiting teachers leave the work force altogether. The reasons for teaching exits are found to differ substantially by gender. The paper discusses why, in general, studies of quit behavior which simply include a measure of a person’s total number of children will typically fail to capture the true importance of fertility behavior on a female’s quit decision. When an alternative measure, which indicates whether a new child has been born in the current year, is also used, family variables are found to entirely explain significant gender differences which exist in the probability that a person will leave the work force. The findings have direct implications on current education debates, including debates regarding commonly proposed wage increases for teachers. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank John Bound, Bob Willis, Kathy Hayes, Susanna Loeb, Christopher Swann, and participants at The University of Michigan, and the 1997 Southern Economic Association Meetings for useful comments. The labor supply decisions of elementary and secondary school teachers during the early stages of their careers have received considerable attention. The potential importance of this issue is highlighted by a recent United States Department of Education Study which projects that, due to

graciously sponsored the survey, and Briggs McAndrews at NYSCOSS provided significant help with all aspects of the survey. Deborah Cunningham, Charles Szuberla, Johanna Duncan-Poitier, Nancy Willie-Schiff, and Joe Porter of the New York State Education Department (SED) reviewed the survey and provided helpful comments. Brenda Budka at SED provided the teacher certification data, and patiently answered our many questions about this data. Dan Goldhaber and Michael DeArmond of the University of Washington had a number of valuable suggestions on both the content and design of the survey. Willow Jacobson at the University of North Carolina, Pat Ingraham at Syracuse University, and Mark Robbins and Bill Simonsen, at the University of Connecticut, critiqued the survey instrument, and proposed a number of revisions to reduce length and improve clarity. We also want to thank Jeff McLellan, Kim Kirsch, and Bob Bifulco for their comments on preliminary draft of the report. We appreciate the willingness of Robert Strauss of Carnegie Mellon University to allow us to borrow from his survey on teacher hiring practices in Pennsylvania. Errors and omissions are, of course, solely the responsibility of the authors.

A key challenge facing education reformers is how to attract and retain talented people in the teaching profession. Research shows the impact that teacher quality has on student achievement and that our most economically disadvantaged students, those who need the most from their schools, are least likely to have the most qualified teachers. The fact is that while we have many great teachers who labor anonymously every day—often in the face of trying circumstances and without adequate support—we do not have enough. To help address this problem, the recent No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires all teachers to be “highly qualified ” by the end of the 2005-06 school year. Meeting this challenging goal is a key component of addressing the achievement gap that adversely impacts too many poor and minority youngsters. However, without changes in how we compensate teachers accompanying the mandate in NCLB, many states and school districts will be unable to meet it. To help policymakers rise to the challenge, this paper by education analyst Bryan Hassel lays out the basis for a “grand bargain”: raise teacher salaries and modernize how we compensate teachers. Rejecting the false choice between raising teacher pay and reforming an archaic pay structure,

Class-size reduction (CSR) mandates presuppose that resources provided to reduce class size will have a larger impact on student outcomes than resources that districts can spend as they see fit. I estimate the impact of Florida’s statewide CSR policy by comparing the deviations from prior achievement trends in districts that were required to reduce class size to deviations from prior trends in districts that received equivalent resources but were not required to reduce class size. I use the same comparative interrupted time series design to compare schools that were differentially affected by the policy (in terms of whether they had to reduce class size) but that did not receive equal additional resources. The results from both the district- and school-level analyses indicate that mandated CSR in Florida had little, if any, effect on cognitive and noncognitive outcomes.

On behalf of:

Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................1 2. Objectives and Research Questions ............................................................................ 3 3. Cases Studies .............................................................................................................. 6 4. Relevance to Bank Work and Other Research.......................................................... 10 References......................................................................................................................... 10 1. Introduction A substantial body of research has shown that controlling for differences in students' socioeconomic background, teachers constitute the most important determinant of student achievement (see, for recent examples, Rivk

Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................1 2. Objectives and Research Questions ............................................................................ 3 3. Cases Studies .............................................................................................................. 6 4. Relevance to Bank Work and Other Research.......................................................... 10 References......................................................................................................................... 10 1. Introduction A substantial body of research has shown that controlling for differences in students' socioeconomic background, teachers constitute the most important determinant of student achievement (see, for recent examples, Rivk

Much attention has been given to education reform at the primary and secondary level in the United States since the “Coleman Report ” (Coleman et. al., 1966). Consideration by Becker, Murphy and Tumura, (1993) , of the role of education on economic growth, the lagging performance of the U.S. relative to other nations at the primary and secondary educational levels, and competition among states to attract industry with a skilled labor force all serve to liven the public policy debate on education reform. This is true both nationally and in South Carolina. The aim of this paper is threefold: (1) to provide the casual reader a review of some recent findings by leading economists in the economics of education area (2) discuss a few terms/concepts that are endemic with respect to research in this area (3) touch on continuing research efforts at the Jim Self Center On The Future (JSCF) that are focused on South Carolina’s educational concerns. Section I presents the few terms and concepts that appear repeatedly in the articles that are surveyed in Section II. Section III discusses available data assembled at the JSCF, potential data and possible research endeavors. The last section concludes the paper. I

the New York State Board of Regents, and education scholars, researchers and policymakers from New York and around the country. By bringing education researchers together with policymakers, the Consortium seeks to address critical questions about the state of public education in New York. The Consortium’s mission is to foster an exchange of information and ideas that informs education policy decisions, assist education policy decision-makers in identifying issues that require initial or further study, and produce quality and timely research that contributes to the development of sound education policy. The Consortium is housed in the Center for Policy Research, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, University at Albany – SUNY. Condition reports are written using education data compiled by New York State agencies and from data independently collected by the researchers. Consortium researchers work closely with agency staff to identify and analyze trends in school district spending, school staffing and student performance. The condition reports describe various characteristics of New York State's public school systems and also identify potential areas for further study.