ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND READINGS– TEACHERS

Purpose / This document lists additional resources, research, insights, and alternative points of view of key topics discussed by USHCA relating to teacher quality. Note: USHCA does not officially endorse any of the articles or websites below; we provide them to you as a sampling of additional resources available.
Intended User(s) / HR/HC Chiefs and Teams

GENERAL WEBSITES

  • Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER).
  • Center for Education Data & Research.
  • Center on Reinventing Public Education.
  • Education Week.
  • National Center for Teacher Effectiveness (NCTE).
  • National Council on Teacher Quality.
  • The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
  • Project on the Next Generation of Teachers.
  • Supporting Principals to Use Teacher Effectiveness Measures for Talent Management Decisions – Vanderbilt University, Peabody College.
  • Teacher Policy Research.
  • TNTP (formerly The New Teacher Project).

PREPARATION AND RECRUITMENT

  • Allen, M., Coble, C., & Crowe, E. (2014). Building an Evidence-Based System for Teacher Preparation. Teacher Preparation Analytics. Available online at:
  • Auguste, B., Kihn, P., Miller, M. (2010). Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top-third graduates to careers in teaching. An international and market research-based perspective. London, UK: McKinsey & Co. Social Sector Office. Available online at:
  • Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 31(4). Available online at:
  • Boyd, D., Goldhaber, D., Lankford, H., & Wycoff, J. (2007). The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. Future of Children, 17(1). Available online at:
  • Boyd, D. et al. (2007). Policy brief: How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Available online at:
  • Decker, P.T., Mayer, D.P., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The effects of Teach for America on students: Findings from a national evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Available online at:
  • DeMonte, J. (2015). A Million New Teachers are Coming. Will they Be Ready? Education Policy Center at American Institute for Research. Available online at:
  • The Department of Education. (2015). Highly Qualified Teachers Enrolled in Programs Providing Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification or Licensure. Available online at:
  • Education Consumers Foundation. (2015). How Effective are Tennessee’s Teacher Preparation Programs. Available online at:
  • Education First. (2015). Ensuring High Quality Teacher Talent. How strong, bold partnerships between school districts and teacher preparation programs are transforming the teacher pipeline. Available online at:
  • Goldhaber, D. & Liddle, S. (2011). The Gateway to the Profession. Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs Based on Student Achievement. CEDR Working Paper 2011-2. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Available online at:
  • Ingersoll, R.M. (2007). A comparative study of teacher preparation and qualifications in six countries. CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-47. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Available online at:
  • Mead, S., Aldeman, C., Chuong, C., & Obbard, J. (2015). Rethinking Teacher Preparation. Empowering Local Schools to Solve California’s Teacher Shortage and Better Develop Teachers. Bellwether Education Partners. Available online at:
  • The New Teacher Project. (2012). Keeping Irreplaceables in D.C. Public Schools. Lessons in Smart Teacher Retention. Available online at:
  • National Center for Teacher Residencies. (2015). NCTR 2015 Network Impact Overview. Available online at:
  • National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014). 2014 Teacher Prep Review. A review of the Nation’s Teacher Preparation Programs.
  • Walsh, K., & O’Tracy, C. (2005). Increasing the odds: How better policies can yield good teachers. Washington, DC: National Center for Teacher Quality. Available online at:

HIRING AND SELECTION

  • The Albert Shanker Institute. (2015). The State of Teacher Diversity Executive Summary. Available online at:
  • Behrstock, E., & Coggshall, J.G.. (2009). Key Issue: Teacher Hiring, Placement, and Assignment Practices. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Available online at:
  • The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2005). Things to remember during the teacher hiring season. Washington, DC: Author. Available online at:
  • Chiefs for Change (2016). Diversity to the Forefront. Why it Matters + Recommendations for System-Level Leaders. Available online at:
  • The Department of Education. (2016). The State of Racial Diversity in the Education Workforce. Available online at:
  • Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on Education Next, 2(1) Available online at:
  • Levin, J., & Quinn, M. (2003). Missed opportunities: How we keep high quality teachers out of urban classrooms. New York: The New Teacher Project. Available online at: opportunities/
  • Liu, E. (2005). Hiring, job satisfaction, and the fit between new teachers and their schools. Cambridge, MA: Project of the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard University Graduate School of Education. Available online at:

INDUCTION

  • Glazerman, S. et al. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Results from a randomized controlled study. Executive Summary. Mathematica Policy Research. Available online at:
  • Ingersoll, R., & Strong. (2011). The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning teachers: A critical Review of the Research. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons. Available online at:
  • Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2004). Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring Matter. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons. Available online at:
  • Kapadia, K., Coca, V. & Easton, J. (2007). Keeping new teachers: A first look at the influences of induction in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago Consortium for School Research. Available online at:
  • The New Teacher Center. (2016). High Quality Mentoring & Induction Practices. Available online at:
  • Goldrick, L. (2016). Support From The Start. A 50-State Review of Policies on New Educator Induction and Mentoring. The New Teacher Center. Available online at:
  • Rochkind, J., Immerwahr, J., Ott, A. & Johnson, J. (2007). Getting started: A survey of new public school teachers on their training and first months on the job. In C. Dwyer (Ed.), America’s challenge: Effective teachers for at-risk schools and students (pp. 89–104). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Available online at:

STAFFING AND DEPLOYMENT

  • Bromberg, M. (2016). Achieving Equitable Access to Strong Teachers: A guide for district leaders. Education Trust. Available online at:
  • The Albert Shanker Institute (2015). Teacher Segregation in Los Angeles and New York. Available online at:
  • Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wycoff, J. (2010). Teacher Layoffs: An Empirical Illustration of Seniority v. Measures of Effectiveness. Teacher Policy Research. Available online at:
  • Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wycoff, J. (2011). The Role of Teacher Quality in Retention and Hiring: Using Applications-to-Transfer to Uncover Preferences of Teachers and Schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 30(1). Available online at:
  • Daly, T., Keeling, D., Grainger, R., & Grundies, A. (2008). Mutual benefits: New York City's shift to mutual consent in teacher hiring. New York: The New Teacher Project. Available online at:
  • Gershenson, S., Holt, S., & Papageorge, N. (2015). Who Believes in Me? The Effect of Student-Teacher Demographic Match on Teacher Expectations. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Upjohn Institute Working Papers. Available online at:
  • Ingersoll, R. (2003). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Available online at:
  • Levin, J., Mulhern, J., & Schunk, J. (2005). Unintended consequences: The case for reforming the staffing rules in urban teachers union contracts. New York: The New Teacher Project. Available online at:
  • Loeb, S., & Reininger, M. (2004). Public policy and teacher labor markets: What we know and why it matters. The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. Available online at:

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

  • Allegretto, S.A., Corcoran, S.P., & Mishel, L. (2008). The teaching penalty: Teacher pay losing ground. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Available online at: /old/books/teaching_penalty/teaching-penalty-full-text.pdf
  • Atteberry, A., Briggs, D. D. LaCour, S., Bibilos, C. (2015). Year 2 Denver ProComp Evaluation Report: Teacher Retention and Variability in Bonus Pay, 2001-02 through 2013-14. Center for Assessment, Design, Research and Evaluation. Available online at:
  • Center for American Progress, & Education Resource Strategies. (2015). Do More, Add More, Earn More. Teacher Salary Redesign Lessons from 10 First Mover Districts. Available online at:
  • DeArmond, M. & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Scrambling the Nest Egg: How Well Do Teachers Understand Their Pensions and What Do They Think About Alternative Pension Structures? Available online at: ber.200913.pdf
  • Frank, S., Baroody, K., & Gordon, J. (2013). What School Systems Can Do Right Now to Improve Teacher Compensation and Career Path. Education Resource Strategies. Available online at:
  • Goldhaber, D. (2010). “Teacher Pay Reforms: The Political Implications of Recent Research.” Center for Education Data and Research. Available online at: 4_Teacher%20Pay%20Reforms%20(8-23-10).pdf
  • Goldhaber, D., DeArmond, M.M., & DeBurgomaster, S. (2007). Teacher Attitudes About Compensation Reform: Implications for Reform Implementation. SFRP Working Paper 20. Seattle WA. Center on Reinventing Public Education. Available at:
  • Goldhaber, D. & Walch, J. (2011). Strategic Pay Reform: A Student Outcomes-Based Evaluation of Denver's ProComp Teacher Pay Initiative. CEDR Working Paper 2011-3. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Available online at: 3%20Procomp%20Strategic%20Compensation%20(9-28).pdf
  • Heneman, H.G., Milanowski, A., & Kimball, S. (2007). Teacher performance pay: Synthesis of plans, research, and guidelines for practice. CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-46. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Available online at:
  • Kan, L., Fuchs, D., & Aldeman, C. (2016). Pennies on the Dollar: How Illinois Shortchanges Its Teachers’ Retirement. Bellweather Education Partners. Available online at:
  • McGee, J. (2015). Defined-Contribution Pensions Are Cost-Effective. ManhattanInstitute. Available online at:
  • Miller, R.T. (2008). Tales of Teacher Absence: New Research Yields Patterns that Speak to Policymakers. Center for American Progress. Available online at:
  • National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). Restructuring Teacher Pay to Reward Excellence. Available online at:
  • The New Teacher Project. (2014). Shortchanged. The Hidden Costs of Lockstep Teacher Pay. Available online at:
  • Roza, M. & Miller, R. (2009). Separation of Degrees: State-By-State Analysis of Teacher Compensation for Master’s Degrees. Center for American Progress. Available online at:
  • Springer, M. G. et al. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Project on incentives in teaching. Executive summary. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives. Available online at:

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

  • The Aspen Institute. (2016). Teacher Evaluation and Support Systems. A road map for improvement. Available online at:
  • Braun, H.I. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value- added models. Education Testing Service. Available online at:
  • Cantrell, S. (2012). Measuring Effective Teaching: A Potential for Change. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Available online at: Potential-for-Change
  • Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., Rockoff, J.E. (2011). The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 17699. Available online at:
  • Donaldson, M.L, Peske H. (2009). Supporting effective teaching through the evaluation process. Center for American Progress. Available online at:
  • Education First. (2015). Giving Teachers the Feedback and Support They Deserve. Five Essential Practices. Available online at:
  • Johnson, S.M., et al. (2009). A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance and Review. Available online at:
  • Johnson, S.M., Papay, J., Fiarman, S., Munger, M.S., Qazilbash, E.K.. (2010). Teacher to teacher: Realizing the potential of peer assistance and review. Center for American Progress. Available online at:
  • Kane, T.J., Taylor, E.S., Tyler, J.H., & Wooten, A. (2011) Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness, Vol 11, No. 3. Available online at:
  • Koretz, D. (2008). A Measured Approach: Value-added measures are a promising improvement, but no one measure can evaluate teacher performance. The American Educator, Fall 2008. Available online at
  • The New Teacher Project. (2012). “MET” Made Simple: Building research-based teacher evaluations. Available online at: Facebook
  • The New Teacher Project. (2010). Teacher evaluation 2.0. Brooklyn: The New Teacher Project. Available online at:
  • Raudenbush, S. (2013). What Do We Know About Using Value-Added to Compare Teachers Who Work in Different Schools? Carnegie Knowledge Network. Available online at:
  • Shields, R., & Lewis C. (2012). Rethinking the Value Proposition to Improve Teaching Effectiveness. Education Resource Strategies (ERS). Available online at:
  • Teach Plus. Reach 2.0: Incorporating Peer Feedback and Peer Evaluation. (2015). Available online at:
  • Toch, T. & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector. Available online at:
  • Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn: The New Teacher Project. Available online at:
  • Wood, J., Tocci, C., Joe, J., Hotlzman, S., Cantrell, S., & Archer, J. (2014). Building Trust in Observations. A Blueprint for Improving Systems to Support Great Teaching. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Available online at:

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  • Education Resource Strategies. (2013). A New Vision for Teacher Professional Growth & Support. Available online at:
  • Center on International Education Benchmarking. (2015). Beyond PD. Teacher Professional Learning in High-Performing Systems. Available online at:
  • Hill, H., & Herlihy, C. (2011). Prioritizing teaching quality in a new system of teacher evaluation. American Enterprise Institute. Available online at: 2011_130927384655.pdf
  • The National Council on Teacher Quality (2016). Learning about Learning: What every new teacher needs to know. Available at:
  • Plecki, M., Knapp, M., Castaneda, T., Halvorsen, T., Lochmiller, C. & LaSota, R., (2009). How leaders invest staffing resources in learning improvement. A report to the Wallace Foundation. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Available online at: leadership/district-policy-and-practice/Pages/How-Leaders-Invest-Staffing-Resources-for-Learning- Improvement.aspx
  • Resnick, L.B. (2005). Teaching Teachers: Professional Development To Improve Student Achievement. AERA Research Points. Available online at:
  • Sclafani, S. (2008). “Rethinking Human Capital in Education: Singapore as a Model for Teacher Development.” Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Available online at: development
  • The New Teacher Project. (2015). The Mirage – Confronting the Hard Truth about Our Quest for Teacher Development. Available online at:
  • Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council. Available online at:

CAREER MANAGEMENT

  • Arnett, T. (2016). Solving the nation’s teacher shortage. How online learning can fix the broken teacher labor market. Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation. Available online at:
  • Behrstock-Sherratt, E. (2016). Creating coherence in the teacher shortage debate. What policy leaders should know and do. AIR Education Policy Center. Available online at:
  • Cowan, J., Goldhaber, D., Hayes, K., & Theobald, R. (2015). Missing elements in the discussion of teacher shortages. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from shortages
  • Gates, B. (2015). Teaching is About Relationships. Gates Notes. Available online at:
  • Gray, L., Taie, S., & O’Rear, I. (2015). Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the First Five Years: Results from the first thought fifth waves of the 2007-08 beginning teacher longitudinal study. Institute of Education Sciences. Available online at:
  • Johnson, S., Berg, J., & Donaldson, M. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why? A review of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA: The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Available online at:
  • NCTQ District Policy (2014). Roll Call: The importance of teacher attendance. Available at:
  • Wellins, R. S., & Schweyer, A. (n.d.). Talent management in motion—Keeping up with an evolving workforce. Washington, DC: Human Capital Institute/Development Dimensions International. Available online at:

SCHOOL HMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

  • Arons, B. (2014). Front and Center: The Role of Human Resources. School Administrator 4(71). P. 31-33. Available online at:
  • Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wycoff, J. (2009). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. Working paper. Available online at: 22May2009.pdf.
  • Campbell, C., DeArmond, M., Schumwinger, A., (2004, April). From Bystander to Ally: Transforming the District Human Resources Department. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, Center on Reinventing Public Education. Available online at:
  • Martin, C., Partelow, L., (2015). Center for American Progress. Available online at:
  • Chiefs for Change (2016). Diversity to the Forefront. Why it Matters + Recommendations for System-Level Leaders. Available online at:
  • Honig, M.I., Copland, M.A., Rainey, L., Lorton, J.A., & Newton, M. (2010, April). School district central office transformation for teaching and learning improvement. A report to the Wallace Foundation. Seattle, WA: The Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Available online at: CentralAdmin-04-2010.pdf
  • Learning Forward. (2015). Do You See What I See? A District Designs Learning Plan to Develop a Clear Vision of Effective Instruction. Available online at:
  • Milanowski, A., & Kimball, S. (2010). The principal as human capital manager: Lessons from the private sector, in Re. Curtis & J. Wurtzel (Eds.). Teaching talent: A visionary framework for human capital in education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Available online at: _Lessons_from_the_Private_Sector.pdf
  • National Council on Teacher Quality. (2015). State of the States 20115: Evaluating Teaching, Leading and Learning. Available online at:
  • National Council on Teacher Quality. (n.d.). Teacher-Quality Checklist for School Districts. Available online at:
  • Odden, A. & Kelley, J. A. (2008). What is SMHC? Strategic Management of Human Capital project of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin- Madison. Available online at:
  • Wallace Foundation. (2012). The School Principal as Leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. leadership/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf