BurnsSusanGardnerCatherine D., and MeeuwsenJoyce. An Interim Evaluation of Teacher and Principal Experiences During the Pilot Phase of AISD REACH. Nashville, Tenn.: National Center on Performance Incentives Working Paper Series, 2009.
3.
GoldhaberDan. “The Mystery of Good Teaching.”Education Next2, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1–17.
4.
GoldhaberDan. “The Politics of Teacher Pay Reform.” In Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education, ed. SpringerMatthew G.. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009.
5.
HannawayJane, and RotherhamAndrew J.. “Collective Bargaining in Education and Pay for Performance.”Working Paper no. 2008-11. Nashville, Tenn.: National Center on Performance Incentives, 2008.
6.
HanushekEric A.“The Trade-off Between Child Quantity and Quality.”Journal of Political Economy100, no. 1 (1992): 84–117.
7.
HanushekEric A., and RivkinSteven G.. “How to Improve the Supply of High-Quality Teachers.”Brookings Papers on Education Policy (2004): 7–25.
8.
HanushekEric A.KainJohn F., and RivkinSteven G.. “Do Higher Salaries Buy Better Teachers?”NBER Working Paper no. 7082. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1999.
MurnaneRichard J., and CohenDavid. “Merit Pay and the Evaluation Problem: Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and Few Survive.”Harvard Education Review56, no. 1 (1986): 1–17.
11.
PodgurskyMichael. “A Market-Based Perspective on Teacher Compensation Reform.” In Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education, ed. SpringerMatthew G.. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009.
12.
PodgurskyMichael, and SpringerMatthew G.. “Teacher Performance Pay: A Review.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management26, no. 4 (2007): 909–949.
13.
ProtsikJean. History of Teacher Pay and Incentive Reform. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center, 1995.
14.
RozaMarguerite, and MillerRaegen. Separation of Degrees: State-By-State Analysis of Teacher Compensation for Master's Degrees. Seattle, Wash.: Center on Reinventing Public Education Rapid Response Brief, 2009.
15.
SandersWilliam L., and RiversJune C.. Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement. Knoxville, Tenn.: Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, University of Tennessee, 1996.
16.
TaylorLori, and SpringerMatthew G.. “Optimal Incentives for Public Sector Workers: The Case of Teacher-Designed Incentive Pay in Texas.”Working Paper no. 2009-05. Nashville, Tenn.: National Center on Performance Incentives, 2009.
17.
U.S. Department of Education.“Race to the Top Application for Initial Funding.” CFDA Number: 84.395A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2009.
18.
WeingartenRandi. “Turning Negative to Positive.”New York Teacher, Oct. 18, 2007.
