Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
IN EARLY 1999, when it was formally launched, the Signing Bonus Program for New Teachers attracted nationwide attention. Small wonder, what with its 20, 000 signing bonus, its cross-country recruiting, and its promise to prepare individuals to be excellent teachers in just seven weeks. The Tampa Tribune wrote, If the effort pays off, perhaps it can be duplicated here and elsewhere. (1) The Cleveland Plain Dealer declared, Massachusetts has vaulted to the forefront of the nation in teacher recruitment. (2) Favorable attention continued into the second year of the program, when the Milken Family Foundation recognized the Bonus Program at its national education conference in July 2000, prompting the Boston Herald to publish this enthusiastic headline: Bay State Recruiting Cheered as Model for the Nation. (3) Eight months later, the state disseminated a favorable internal evaluation that generated this headline from the School Board News: Teacher Bonuses Pay Off in (4) One commentator wrote, All eyes are on Massachusetts. The state's success--or lack of it--in training and retaining new teachers will interest departments of education in 49 other states! (5) When problems began to appear in 2001, however, only local eyes were watching. No national outlets published the stories about high attrition rates, ineffective recruitment, and inadequate training that appeared in the local press. Nor did the national media notice when the state legislature eliminated the Bonus Program's funding altogether in spring 2003. It is important to look at what happened in Massachusetts, because federal and state policy makers continue to push--and more states have begun to adopt--fast-track certification programs similar in many ways to the initiative. How, where, and why did this effort to circumvent traditional routes to teacher certification fall short of so many goals? Why did it disappear? And, most important, what lessons should policy makers draw from this experiment? BACKGROUND The Signing Bonus Program (MSBP) was preceded--indeed, made possible--by two events that occurred in in June 1998. The first was the announcement that 59% of aspiring teachers had failed to pass the first administration of the state's new three-part licensure exam, the Tests. Aptly described as the flunk heard round the world, (6) this event convinced some observers that schools of education were to blame for admitting and graduating too many individuals with too few skills. Many others argued that, because these tests were fraught with problems, such conclusions were unwarranted. (7) But the protests fell on deaf ears. Commentators and policy makers seized upon the results as a pretext to condemn, and seek alternatives to, traditional approaches to teacher education. The other enabling event was the news that had amassed a 1-billion budget surplus. Thomas Birmingham, president of the state senate, proposed using part of the surplus to establish an endowment that would fund 20, 000 bonuses to lure high-achieving individuals into David Driscoll, the newly appointed state commissioner of education, who was seeking to take control of the teacher preparation issue, featured the bonus program as a key element of a larger initiative designed to improve teacher quality, which became law in July 1998. PROGRAM DESIGN AND FOUNDING ASSUMPTIONS The MSBP was designed to encourage high-achieving candidates to enter the teaching profession who would otherwise not consider a career in teaching. (8) According to the state's policy makers, such individuals often eschew teaching because of the low pay and the length of time it takes to complete teacher preparation. Clearly, the 20, 000 bonus was designed to address the issue of low pay. Further, policy makers expected to increase retention by stretching the bonus out over four years: 8, 000 in year one and 4, 000 in years two, three, and four. …
R. Clarke Fowler (Tue,) studied this question.