Introduction

National and, increasingly, state education policy is focusing on the interrelated challenges of improving teacher quality and turning around low-performing schools. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires states to develop accountability systems that evaluate schools based on the achievement of all students and take steps to help schools that need improvement in order to close achievement gaps. In addition, NCLB requires that by 2006 teachers in all public schools hold full state certification and meet a minimal definition of "highly qualified," based on expertise in the subjects they teach.

No Child Left Behind does not, however, tell states how to specifically accomplish these highly ambitious goals. To do so, state and national policymakers must put forward a broad and robust package of policy initiatives as well as ensure that existing resources are harnessed as effectively as possible. At the state level, one mostly untapped area is the growing cadre of teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). More than 32,000 teachers nationwide now hold this designation, and 49 states and 530 localities offer some sort of incentive or recognition for them. More specifically, 30 states and the District of Columbia offer bonuses or higher salaries to National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs).

States and the federal government have made a substantial investment in NBPTS certification. Since 1987, NBPTS has received $129 million in federal funding and an additional $143 million from philanthropic and private sources. States and localities are making substantial additional investments in NBPTS through various bonuses, differentials, and incentives for NBCTs. The Progressive Policy Institute estimates that states are spending more than $100 million annually on these incentives in addition to local school district incentives and reimbursements for fees incurred during the certification process.

Currently, however, NBCTs are disproportionately working in more affluent schools that are less likely to be struggling or having trouble meeting NCLB's teacher quality mandate. Only three states -- California, Illinois, and New York -- offer robust salary incentives for NBCTs to work in low-performing or high-poverty schools. Thus, in most states, incentives are awarded in a way largely unrelated to broader school improvement goals and possibly work at cross purposes with the task of improving educational quality for low-income and minority youngsters in struggling schools.

State policymakers should resolve this mismatch by making two related changes to NBPTS incentives:

• First, states should make the maximum differentials and bonuses for NBCTs more substantial than they are now. Only eight states offer incentives of $5,000 or more. These incentives must also be sustained over time. Due to state-level budget constraints and growth in the number of NBCTs, some states are cutting funding for these programs. Small stipends and uncertainty about funding weakens the appeal of these incentives.
• Second, states should link these incentives to their efforts to help hard-to-staff schools meet NCLB's highly qualified teacher mandate or to otherwise help struggling schools improve. Ideally, states should tie NBPTS bonuses to service in high-poverty and/or low-performing schools. Short of this, states could make bonuses conditional on service or mentoring part of school improvement initiatives undertaken by states or school districts. Due to the magnitude of the challenges facing states, larger bonuses or salary increases should be targeted toward NBCTs doing the most to help states address these issues.

Helping struggling schools demands that all resources be used as effectively as possible. Larger and better-targeted bonuses and differentials for NBCTs will ultimately leverage greater educational improvement than smaller, more diffuse incentives divorced from broader state and national policy goals.