BallouD. (2000). Teacher contracts in Massachusetts.Boston, MA: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research.
4.
BallouD., & PodgurskyM. (1997). Teacher pay and teacher quality.Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
5.
BondL. (1998). Disparate impact and teacher certification. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(2), 211–220.
6.
BrewerD.J. (1996). Career paths and quit decisions: Evidence from teaching. Journal of Labor Economics, 14(2), 313–339.
7.
BrykA.S., & SchneiderB.L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
8.
CertoJ.L., & FoxJ.E. (2002). Retaining quality teachers. The High School Journal, 86(Oct/Nov), 57–75.
9.
CornettL.M. (1994, April). Ups and downs of incentive programs. Southern Regional Education Board Career Ladder Clearinghouse.Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Educational Board.
10.
DanielsonC, & McGrealT. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11.
Educational Research Service. (1978). Methods of scheduling salaries for teachers.Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
12.
FuhrmanS. (1999). The new accountability.Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
13.
GallagherH.A. (2002, April). The relationship between measures of teacher quality and student achievement: The case of Vaughn Elementary. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
14.
HalversonR., KelleyC., & KimballS. (2003, April). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
15.
HanushekE.A., KainJ.F., & RivkinS.G. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers.Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
16.
HatryH.P., GreinerJ.M., & AshfordB.G. (1994). Issues and case studies in teacher incentive plans (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
17.
HoffmanL. (2002). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools and districts: School year 2000–2001 (NCES 2002–356).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
18.
IngersollR.M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools (Document No. R-01–1). Center for the Study of Teacher Policy, University of Washington.
19.
ImazekiJ.Y. (2000). School finance reform and the market for teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
20.
JacobsonS.L. (1987). Merit pay and teaching as a career. In AlexanderK., and MonkD.H. (Eds.), Attracting and compensating Americas teachers. Eighth annual yearbook of the American Educational Finance Association, (pp. 161–177). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
21.
JeraldCD. (2002). All talk, no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching.Washington, DC: Education Trust.
22.
JohnsonS.M. (1986). Incentives for teachers: What motivates, what matters?Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 54–79.
23.
KannapelP.J., CoeP., AagaardL., MooreB.D., & ReevesC.A. (2000). Teacher responses to rewards and sanctions: Effects of and reactions to Kentucky's high stakes accountability program. In WhitfordB. L., and JonesK. (Eds.), Accountability, assessment and teacher commitment: Lessons from Kentucky's reform efforts (pp. 127–146). New York: SUNY Press.
KelleyC. (1998). The Kentucky school-based performance award program: School-level effects. Educational Policy, 12(3), 305–324.
26.
KelleyC, & FinniganK. (2003). The effects of organizational context on teacher expectancy. Educational Administration Quarterly39(5), 603–634.
27.
KelleyC, & GardnerD. (2002, April). Good return on the investment? Teacher perceptions of the value of incentives and rewards for National Board Certification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
KelleyC., & KimballS. (2001, September). Financial incentives for National Board Certification. Educational Policy, 15(4), 547–574.
30.
KelleyC., & ProtsikJ. (1997). Risk and reward: Perspectives on the implementation of Kentucky's school-based performance award program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(4), 474–505.
31.
KellorE.M. (2003a). Catching up with the Vaughn Express: Four years of performance pay and standards-based teacher evaluation. CPRE UW Working Paper Series TC-03-02, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved October 28, 2003, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/papers/pdf/Vaughn2003.pdf
32.
KellorE.M. (2003b). State and local initiatives. October 2003 CPRE-UW e-newsletter. Retrieved October 20, 2003, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/tcomp
33.
KingR.A., & MathersJ.K. (1997). Improving schools through performance-based accountability and financial rewards. Journal of Education Finance, 23, 147–176.
LaddH.F. (1999). The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of its impact on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 18(1), 1–16.
36.
LaddH.F. (2001). School-based educational accountability systems: The promise and the pitfalls. National Tax Journal, 54(2), 385–400.
37.
LaddH.F., & WalshR.P. (2002). Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentive right. Economics of Education Review, 21(1), 1–17.
38.
LankfordH., LoebS., & WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
39.
LiuE., JohnsonS.M., & PeskeH.G. (2003, April). New teachers and the Massachusetts signing bonus: The limits of inducements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
40.
LoebS. (2000, November 8). How teachers’ choices affect what a dollar can buy: Wages and quality in K–12 schooling.Proceedings from the Symposium on the Teaching Workforce, Albany, New York: Education Finance Research Consortium.
41.
ManskiC.F. (1987). Academic ability, earnings, and the decision to become a teacher: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. In WiseD.A. (Ed.), Public sector payrolls (pp. 291–312). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
McNeilL.M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing.New York: Routledge.
43.
MilanowskiA. (2003, December 27). An exploration of the pay levels needed to attract students with mathematics, science and technology skills to a career in K–12 teaching, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(50). Retrieved November 13, 2003 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n50/
MurnaneR.J., & CohenD.K. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 1–17.
46.
MurnaneR.J., & PhillipsB.R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage, and selection: Three pieces of the puzzle relating teaching experience and teaching performance. Economics of Education Review, 1(4), 453–465.
47.
MurnaneR.J., SingerJ.D., & WillettJ.B. (1989). The influences of salaries and “opportunity costs” on teachers’ career choices: Evidence from North Carolina. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 325–346.
48.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
49.
NCES (National Commission on Education Statistics). (1996). Urban schools, the challenge of location and poverty.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement.
50.
NCES (National Commission on Education Statistics). (1997). America's teachers: Profile of a profession, 1993–94.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
51.
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). (2003). Conditions of education.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
OddenA., & KelleyC. (2002). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
54.
O'ReillyF. (1996). Educational accountability: Current practices and theories in use.Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
55.
PoggioJ.P. (2000). Statewide performance assessment and school accountability. In PankratzR. S., & PetroskoJ.M. (Eds.), All children can learn: Lessons from the Kentucky reform experience (pp. 75–97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56.
RiceJ.K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
57.
RockoffJ.E. (2003). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. Retrieved December 9, 2003, from http://econwpa.wustl.edu/eps/pe/papers/0304/0304002.pdf
58.
SandersW.L., & HornS.P. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 299–311.
59.
ShenJ. (2001). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 81–88.
60.
StecherB.M., & BarronS. (1999, April). Test-based accountability: The perverse consequences of milepost testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003a). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary's second annual report on teacher quality.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education.
63.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003b). Improving teacher quality: Non-regulatory guidance. Revised Draft, September 12, 2003. Washington, DC: Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Author. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/edpicks.jhtml?src=fp
64.
WrightPS., HornS.P., & SandersW.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.