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, Minnesota's evaluations do not substantively assess teacher quality. Notably, the state includes multiple measures that weight student growth as 35% of total evaluations. Principals are measured based in part on their effective management of teachers. Yet teacher evaluations lack annual frequency for all teachers, as well as at least four tiers of effectiveness. This is critical to differentiating performance so that all educators have substantive information to improve their practice. Districts must also have the authority to develop evaluation criteria apart from contract negotiations, protecting these systems from change based on other interests.

Basing personnel decisions on performance is critical to building schools that retain effective teachers and make student achievement paramount. Minnesota is behind in this area; specifically, the state does not use teacher effectiveness to drive decisions around teacher assignment, layoffs, and tenure. Schools do not have the authority to build and maintain an effective instructional team, including making their own hiring decisions and having the ultimate say in dismissal of any 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. 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. Minnesota has a voluntary peformance-pay teacher compensation system. Seventy percent of teachers in the respective school district must agree to the plan, and at least 60% of any compensation increase must be based on performance. To strengthen teacher compensation systems across the state, Minnesota should expressly prohibit automatic pay increases for master's degrees alone and require all school districts to implement performance-pay systems that prioritize student outcome measures.

Minnesota became a leader in alternative certification programs in 2011. The state requires alternative certification providers to include selective GPA requirements and a demonstration of content knowledge, which ensures high-quality teacher candidates. Providers can come from outside the state's university system. Teachers who go through an alternative certification process may teach on a provisional license while completing their teacher preparation program. Minnesota law provides general guidelines for components that programs must include, and it outlines the process for authorizing programs. It also states that the Board of Teaching has the power to decommission a program, although it does not establish clear criteria for that process. The state should establish a rigorous process for decommissioning programs shown to be ineffective based on teacher evaluation data.

Currently, parents in Minnesota do not have access to meaningful information that enables them to engage in their schools and to make informed decisions for their children. To further empower parents with information, Minnesota should require that PK_12 schools receive an annual report card that includes an A_F letter grade based on student achievement. Minnesota should also make teacher effectiveness data available to parents and require parental consent for a student to be placed with an ineffective teacher. Finally, Minnesota should empower parents by establishing a parent trigger law that allows a majority of parents to band together at the grassroots level and petition to turn around low-performing schools throughout the state.

Minnesota is working to ensure students are not trapped in failing schools by providing high-quality school choice options for parents, yet more work needs to be done. The state was the first in the country to allow public charter schools. Now Minnesota should strengthen its charter accountability policies to ensure both schools and authorizers are accountable for student achievement results. Further, Minnesota should create a publicly financed scholarship program for low-income students in chronically failing public schools to attend private schools that meet certain accountability standards.

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. Minnesota public charter schools receive general state funding comparable to what traditional school districts receive and additional state funding in lieu of local funds. In 2011, the legislature considered, but did not pass, legislation to strengthen charter school funding. Minnesota should remove its skimming provisions that currently allow up to 3% of a charter school's funding to be retained by the charter's authorizer. The state should also remove unusually restrictive language that prevents charter schools from using any state funds to purchase land or buildings. Minnesota should instead provide access to unused school buildings and facility financing.

The ability to turn around failing schools is often hampered by bureaucratic red tape and politics. Currently, Minnesota does not allow for alternative governance structures that streamline accountability. Minnesota can address this at a state level by providing state control of underperforming schools and districts. At the local level, Minnesota should allow full mayoral control of low-performing school districts. These changes would provide for more flexibility in addressing the needs of low-performing schools and 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. Minnesota does not impose ineffective rules on class size past the third grade, which provides school districts with staffing flexibility. However, Minnesota should provide greater spending flexibility to school districts by removing other restrictions that limit their ability to reallocate resources to their greatest needs. Moreover, Michigan should also empower data-driven decisionmaking by improving the financial data it collects and linking spending to academic achievement. The law should enable governance changes when resources are mismanaged.

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. Currently, there are three teacher retirement funds in Minnesota; all are defined benefit plans, and all public school employees are required to participate. 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, Minnesota should move to a portable employer-sponsored retirement plan and permit public charter schools to opt out of the plan.