Strong evaluation systems are foundational to improving teacher and principal quality; evaluations recognize excellence, support development, and address ineffectiveness. They must be meaningful, objective, and fair. Unfortunately, California's evaluations do not substantively assess teacher and principal quality. While probationary principals and teachers are evaluated annually, educators with permanent status are evaluated every other year; after ten years of service, some educators are only evaluated every five years. In every case, California's evaluations lack critical components, including multiple measures linked to student growth and a four-tier rating of effectiveness. California must invest in its educators by evaluating all educators annually according to a four-tier rating system that significantly weighs student growth. Additionally, teacher evaluations should include classroom observations and student feedback, and principal evaluations should include effective staff management. Districts must also have the authority to develop evaluation criteria apart from contract negotiations, ensuring these systems will be subject to change based on student interests alone.

Basing personnel decisions on performance is critical to building schools that retain effective teachers and make student achievement paramount. California 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 making autonomous decisions about hiring staff and dismissing ineffective teachers. Furthermore, when teachers are forced to be laid off during a budget-induced reduction in force, the state mandates that seniority, not performance, determines layoffs. In regard to tenure, teachers receive this status after serving a short three-year probationary period. In some cases, at the discretion of the local school board, this can be shortened to two years. Attainment and revocation of tenure are not tied to performance. 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. California requires teachers to be placed on a uniform salary schedule based on years of experience and training, but it does not explicitly require automatic pay increases for master's degrees. The state also permits public school employers and bargaining representatives to jointly develop compensation plans that consider elements in addition to experience and training. To prioritize the hiring and retention of effective teachers, the state should prohibit automatic salary increases for master's degrees and require districts to link pay increases to performance measures that prioritize student outcomes.

California allows for streamlined certification through alternative routes, which can be delivered by non-university providers. Instead of requiring candidates for alternative certification to obtain an undergraduate degree in the subject taught, candidates must pass a content-area exam to demonstrate subject mastery. However, there are no higher admissions requirements for entry into an alternative certification program that ensure the teaching pool is comprised of quality applicants. California should strengthen admissions by instituting a minimum GPA or requiring a graduate degree and a work experience requirement in the subject area taught. The state should also hold providers accountable for teacher performance in the classroom. California has a process in place to authorize alternative teacher certification programs based on availability of funding. Not included is consideration of teacher effectiveness, so to ensure the effective preparation of its teachers, California should consider student achievement scores in its evaluation and decommission ineffective programs.

California has taken a strong step toward empowering parents by becoming the first state to pass a parent trigger law, serving as a model for other states. There are a number of other steps that the state can take to further empower parents with information and options. California should, for example, require that each school receive an annual report card that includes an A_F letter grade based on student achievement. To empower parents with information, California should require that parents be notified when their children are placed with an ineffective teacher and allow for parent access to teacher evaluation information. Also, California should require that districts obtain parental consent for placement of a student with an ineffective teacher.

California provides choices to students stuck in failing public schools through public charter schools, but the state must do more to ensure options are high quality. California must lift its arbitrary cap on public charter schools and require these autonomous schools be held accountable for student achievement results. While the state ensures charters are limited to five-year contracts and each charter school is subject to an annual performance review, California should expand the number of charter authorizers beyond local school boards and require each charter school to enter into a performance contract that ensures the charter school is successfully raising student achievement. Additionally, California should provide equal opportunity scholarships for low-income students attending a chronically failing traditional public school to attend a private school. However, private schools that accept equal opportunity scholarships must adhere to certain accountability provisions that ensure recipients attend a high-quality alternative.

Children stuck in chronically failing schools should have an option to attend another school of their choice without being punished by the state through reduced funding. California law specifies the legislature's intent that traditional public schools and public charter schools receive comparable funding. However, a January 2012 report by the Legislative Analyst's Office found that charter schools receive at least 7% less funding than their traditional public school counterparts. In some instances, the inequity exceeded $1,000 per student. California should remedy inequities related to grant funding that cause this discrepancy. On a positive note, California requires school districts to provide facilities for charter schools and provides some dedicated programs for financing charter school construction.

The ability to turn around failing schools is often hampered by bureaucratic red tape and politics. California law allows the state to take full control of consistently low-performing schools, although it has yet to use this authority in a strategic way. At the local level, changes in governance are limited by the state constitution. In 2007, Mayor Antonio Villarigosa tried to take control of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Subsequently, the California Supreme Court found that mayoral control over school districts is unconstitutional in California, barring mayoral control in Los Angeles. To allow for governance structures that streamline accountability at the local level, California should amend its constitution to provide for mayoral control of consistently low-performing school districts.

Given the limited resources available for public education, states must ensure that the dollars invested drive the greatest change. California authorized complete spending flexibility for school districts, the county offices of education, and public charter schools for approximately 40 categorical programs beginning in fiscal year 2008_09 and continuing through 2014_15. California should make this flexibility permanent. California should also remove less effective class-size restrictions and contracting barriers that limit staffing flexibility and cost efficiency. Furthermore, California should empower data-driven decisionmaking by improving the financial data it collects and linking these data to academic achievement data.

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, California requires employees of traditional 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, California should move to a portable employer-sponsored retirement plan and continue to make this option available to public charter schools.