Adopted by the 1996 Session of the General Assembly, House Joint Resolution No. 165 established a nine-member joint subcommittee to study the efficacy and appropriateness of creating a school incentive reward program in the Commonwealth to recognize improved educational performance in public schools. Specifically citing incentive programs adopted in other states, the resolution notes that these programs may reward not only exceptional educational performance of schools or school divisions, but also continued improvement by those schools that may face special challenges prompted by low education and income levels, school overcrowding, lack of local ability or commitment to support public education, or high concentrations of special needs students. The creation of a similar school incentive program in the Commonwealth requires consideration of a variety of issues, including appropriate criteria for determining improvement in educational performance and funding sources· for any incentive program. The joint subcommittee was directed to consider school incentive reward programs in other states; potential award criteria; ways in which existing evaluation mechanisms might be employed to assess improved educational performance; possible funding sources for such an initiative in Virginia; and such other issues as it deems appropriate.

Education Reform and Incentives for School Performance

In recent years, education reform has turned its focus to educational accountability--initiatives that measure student performance and assign responsibility for improvement. One reform approach already adopted in several states combines accountability with economic theory: to improve public education, states might measure school or pupil performance and reward those schools or divisions demonstrating excellence or showing significant improvement toward clearly stated goals.

These "incentive" initiatives may address teachers, individual schools, or school divisions. Schools or staff may receive financial rewards for excellence or improvement in meeting particular "benchmarks"; those performing poorly may face severe sanctions. Incentives for improved school performance may also include partnerships in which businesses agree to hire graduates on the basis of academic achievement and schools, in turn, agree to provide prompt and accurate pupil information.

Establishing a School Incentive Reward Program in the Commonwealth

Determining the efficacy and appropriateness of establishing such an initiative in Virginia requires consideration of current educational standards for public schools as well as existing assessment mechanisms. Existing educational standards--those found in the Standards of Quality, the Standards of Learning, and the Standards of Accreditation--may serve as performance criteria for an incentive reward program, or may provide a basis for creating additional goals for Virginia's public schools. Ongoing assessments, such as the Literacy Passport and other tests, may prove effective tools for measuring exceptional school performance or progress and for determining eligibility for any incentive rewards. In addition, data gathered for the Outcome Accountability Project (OAP) may prove useful in the creation of an incentive program.

Current Incentive Initiatives in the Commonwealth

A number of school divisions are already exploring incentive programs as a way to improve educational performance. In Norfolk, an instructional management system is combined with an accountability system to include analysis of student outcomes by school, gender, race, and socioeconomic status; review of instructional practices, and assessment of central office readiness. The instructional management component is designed to link what students should learn and what strategies work best to help students learn. The accountability component spans a three-year cycle and incorporates system-wide goals, such as early grade readiness, performance in certain core subjects, course enrollments, and absenteeism; school incentives that set higher goals or "benchmarks" for those schools that are farther behind; and public reports for the system and individual schools. Benchmarks are crafted for each school; those reaching their performance goals are designated "stellar schools" and receive cash awards.

Setting divisionwide direction for schools, students, and staff, the Roanoke City school board reaffirmed objectives addressing student performance, attendance, physical fitness tests, and graduation rates. A cash award would be made to schools meeting or exceeding all of the applicable goals. The most improved elementary, middle, and high school in Portsmouth each receives a cash grant; in Brunswick County, an incentive program sets benchmarks for fourth grade reading.

Building on a number of current statewide educational programs that promote only minimal competition among schools and division, might also enhance educational performance. The Reading Recovery Program, the International Baccalaureate Program, reduced first grade pupil:teacher ratios of 15 to 1, pupil exchange programs, extended school year, teacher mini-sabbaticals and professional development, and postsecondary school scholarships are all avenues that might provide incentives for improved educational performance.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The effectiveness of incentives to improve performance has been cited not only by educators but by business leaders as well. Compensation adequate to meet an employee's needs or to compare favorably with peers; recognition; advancement; and bonuses or awards are common motivators of performance in the workplace, and may similarly prompt improvement in public education. What is clearly critical to the success of any school incentive program, however, as in any reward system, is the link between the desired goal or objective--which must be clearly identified--and the particular motivator.

The creation of any incentive program in the Commonwealth requires careful consideration of the following questions:

• What kinds of educational goals, outcomes, or results are desired, and what incentives might help produce those results?

• What performance criteria should be incorporated in an incentive program in Virginia? To what extent can the SOQ, the SOL, and the SOA serve as the basis for developing additional goals for rewarding school performance?

• How can/could an incentive reward program be structured to reward not only high-performing schools, but also those showing significant improvement?

• Should a school incentive program be a statewide initiative or developed voluntarily at the school division level? Should awards be available to school divisions as well as individual schools? To what uses should school incentive rewards be applied?

• In what ways can existing evaluation mechanisms be employed to collect the data necessary to assess improved educational performance? Are additional mechanisms necessary?

• To what extent should school population be factored into an incentive program? Should schools or divisions be "grouped" in making determinations of improvement or achievement?

The joint subcommittee makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: That the work of the joint subcommittee be continued through the Commission on Accountability for Educational Excellence (HJR 168).

Recommendation 2: That any school incentive reward program adopted in the Commonwealth (i) emphasize family involvement in the educational process; (ii) measure the performance of individual schools, rather than by comparisons to other schools; (iii) include positive as well as negative incentives to improve educational performance; (iv) clearly link any rewards or consequences to the stated goal or objective; and (v) include an evaluation component to determine the effects of incentives on subsequent educational performance.