Strong evaluation systems are foundational to improving teacher and principal quality; meaningful evaluations recognize excellence, support development, and address ineffectiveness. Arkansas's evaluation systems include several key components but lack some critical elements, primarily annual frequency. Arkansas does, however, evaluate educators according to a four-tier rating system that considers multiple measures, including a significant student-growth factor. For teachers, evaluations also include classroom observations. Arkansas must continue on its path of investing in its educators by conducting evaluations annually and by incorporating student feedback in teacher evaluations. Principals should be measured on their ability to manage teachers effectively. Additionally, the state must explicitly provide districts the authority to develop evaluation criteria apart from contract negotiations so that districts are able to develop the most meaningful systems available.

Basing personnel decisions on performance is critical to building schools that retain effective teachers and make student achievement paramount. Arkansas is behind in this area. Specifically, the state does not use teacher effectiveness to drive decisions around teacher assignment, layoffs, or tenure. Schools do not have the authority to build and maintain an effective instructional team, including hiring decisions and dismissal of ineffective teachers. Furthermore, when teachers are forced to be laid off during a budget-induced reduction in force, the state allows local districts to develop their own layoff policies without prohibiting seniority or requiring performance to be the predominant factor. Teachers receive tenure status after serving a three- or four-year probationary period. Criteria for attainment and revocation of tenure are left up to each local district; performance does not have to be considered. Prioritizing students and great teachers requires that performance, evident through strong evaluations, be the driving influence for all personnel decisions.

To encourage a high-quality, diverse workforce, professional pay should be based on performance rather than other non-classroom factors such as seniority or degrees held. Arkansas sets a minimum salary schedule for teachers based on years of experience and the attainment of advanced degrees; measures of effectiveness are not taken into consideration. However, the state has established a statewide pilot program that any public school can apply to participate in. The program requires teacher compensation to be tied to factors such as teacher evaluations and student performance. To foster an environment aimed at attracting and retaining effective teachers, the state should eliminate automatic salary increases for teachers with master's degrees alone and require all school districts to tie pay increases to performance measures that prioritize student outcomes.

Arkansas has a few alternative certification routes, which tend to be state-provided. One is a provisional three-year license granted by the non-traditional licensure program (NTLP). The candidate must have a 2.5 undergraduate GPA, which may be waived if the candidate has 15 years of work experience and a 2.0 GPA. Before qualifying for a provisional license, some candidates are required to complete extra coursework. The state offers a two-year provisional license for Teach For America candidates. Candidates must successfully pass content-based assessments. Arkansas should establish a streamlined alternative certification pathway for all grade levels, with high selectivity standards such as a minimum 3.0 GPA and no requirement for additional irrelevant coursework. The state should also establish a clear accountability system for alternative preparation programs that links program performance to teacher effectiveness in the classroom.

Arkansas should take a number of steps to empower its parents through information and options. Currently, Arkansas requires annual reports on student achievement, including data on major populations, in each school district. To make these reports more accessible to parents, Arkansas should convey this information with an A_F letter grade rather than a numeric score. To further empower parents, Arkansas must allow teacher effectiveness data to be available to parents and for parents to be notified when their children are placed with an ineffective teacher. Also, Arkansas should require parental consent prior to placing a student with an ineffective teacher. The state should also adopt a parent trigger policy that allows a majority of parents to band together at the grassroots level and petition to turn around a low-performing school.

Arkansas must ensure students are not trapped in failing schools by increasing the number of high-quality school choice options for parents. The state must remove restrictions on public school charter growth and establish a high threshold for charter expansion. The state takes important steps to ensure charter schools meet accountability provisions, including performance-based contracts with five-year charter terms and some clear provisions to close underperforming charter schools. Authorizers are required to conduct annual performance reviews but are not held accountable for school performance. However, the state should establish a publicly funded scholarship program that allows low-income students in chronically failing public schools to attend a private school that meets certain accountability provisions.

Arkansas provides open-enrollment charter schools with state funding similar to that provided to school districts, but it does not give them access to local tax revenue. The state funds conversion charter schools through school districts. Arkansas should provide comparable operational funding to all public charter schools and ensure that skimming is prohibited. Arkansas should also provide charter schools with true access to unused school facilities and should establish financing programs for charter school construction.

The ability to turn around failing schools is often hampered by bureaucratic red tape and politics. Arkansas allows for governance flexibility at the state level but not the local level. The State Board of Education may take a number of actions to address any school or district that has failed to meet accreditation standards for two years. Those actions include implementing a new curriculum, reorganizing personnel, and reconstituting the leadership of an entire school district. To promote governance structures that streamline accountability at the local level, Arkansas should allow full mayoral control of low-performing districts.

Given the limited resources available for public education, states must ensure that districts spend as many dollars as possible in the classroom rather than in bureaucracy and that the dollars invested drive the greatest change. Arkansas currently restricts class sizes; to provide greater staffing and spending flexibility to school districts, the state should remove less effective class-size limits past the third grade. Additionally, Arkansas should remove other restrictions that limit districts' ability to reallocate resources to their greatest needs. The state has developed a Fiscal Assessment and Accountability Program that allows the Department of Education to identify, assess, and address school districts in fiscal distress through governance changes. Arkansas should empower data-driven decisionmaking by improving the financial data it collects from the program and linking these data to academic achievement.

Attracting a high-quality workforce will require a competitive retirement plan. Portable retirement options, such as 401(k) plans, are an essential component of compensation packages and make the teaching profession more competitive. It is a classic win-win for teachers and districts. Under current policy, Arkansas requires employees of traditional schools and charter schools to participate in its defined benefit plan. These plans promise teachers a payout based on years of service and salary, not the actual amount contributed to or earned through the fund. If teachers leave before reaching retirement age, they risk losing a significant portion of their savings. To provide career flexibility and ensure sustainability of the existing system, Arkansas should move to a portable employer-sponsored retirement plan and permit public charter schools to opt out of the plan.