This study examined the characteristics of performance-related pay (PRP) for teachers in the United States. From 1999 to 2007, the percentage of districts offering PRP and the percentage of teachers receiving PRP increased significantly. Large and ethnically diverse districts in urban areas with less union influence were more likely to offer PRP. Among the PRP recipients, teachers tended to receive more PRP when they had higher degrees and more experience and worked in districts with less union influence and a higher percentage of ethnically diverse students. However, highly qualified teachers in high demand were no more likely to receive a larger amount of PRP.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonA., BurgessS., CroxsonB., GreggP., PropperC., SlaterH. (2009). Evaluating the impact of performance-related pay for teachers in England. Labour Economics, 16, 251–261.
2.
BacolodM. P. (2007). Do alternative opportunities matter? The role of female labor markets in the decline of teacher quality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(4), 737–751.
3.
BallouD. (2001). Pay for performance in public and private schools. Economics of Education Review, 20, 51–61.
4.
BelfieldC. R., & HeywoodJ. S. (2008). Performance pay for teachers: Determinants and consequences. Economics of Education Review, 27, 243–252.
5.
BrittanD. (1995). Recognizing stars in an age of teamwork. Technology Review, 98(8), 11–12.
6.
CalhounF. S., & ProtheroeN. J. (1983). Merit pay plans for teachers: Status and descriptions.Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
7.
CavalluzzoL. (2004). Is National Board certification an effective signal of teacher quality?Alexandria, VA: CNA.
8.
ClotfelterC. T., & LaddH. F. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In LaddH. F. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 23–64). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
9.
ClotfelterC. T., LaddH. F., & VigdorJ. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26, 673–682.
10.
CorcoranS. P. (2007). Long-run trends in the quality of teachers: Evidence and implications for policy. Education Finance and Policy, 2(4), 395–407.
11.
Darling-HammondL., & YoungsP. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us?Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.
12.
DixitA. (2002). Incentives and organizations in the public sector. Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 696–727.
13.
EbertsR., HollenbeckK., & StoneJ. (2002). Teacher performance incentives and student outcomes. Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 913–927.
14.
EvansW. A. (1970). Pay for performance: Fact or fable. Personnel Journal, 49, 726–731.
15.
FiglioD. N., & KennyL. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 901–914.
GoldhaberD., & AnthonyE. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National Board certification as a signal of effective teaching. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134–150.
18.
GoldhaberD., DeArmondM., PlayerD., & ChoiH.J. (2008). Why do so few public school districts use merit pay?Journal of Education Finance, 33(3), 262–289.
19.
HanushekE. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141–1177.
20.
HanushekE. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141–164.
21.
HanushekE. A., KainJ. F., & RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326–354.
22.
HanushekE. A., & RivkinS. G. (2004). How to improve the supply of high-quality teachers. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy: 2004 (pp. 7–44). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
23.
HenkeR. R., ZahnL., & CarrollC. D. (2001). Attrition of new teachers among recent college graduates comparing occupational stability among 1992–93 graduates who taught and those who worked in other occupations.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
HoxbyC. M., & LeighA. (2004). Pulled away or pushed out? Explaining the decline of teacher aptitude in the United States. American Economic Review, 94(2), 236–240.
26.
IngersollR. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortage: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
27.
JacobsonS. L. (1989). The effects of pay incentives on teacher absenteeism. Journal of Human Resources, 24(2), 280–286.
28.
KelleyC. (1997). Teacher compensation and organization. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 15–28.
29.
KingdonG. G., & TealF. (2007). Does performance related pay for teachers improve student performance? Some evidence from India. Economics of Education Review, 26, 473–486.
30.
KirbyS. N., BerendsM., & NaftelS. (1999). Supply and demand of minority teaches in Texas: Problems and prospects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 47–66.
31.
LaddH. F. (1999). The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 18, 1–16.
32.
LavyV. (2002). Evaluating the effect of teachers’ group performance incentives on pupil achievement. Journal of Political Economy, 110(6), 1286–1317.
33.
LavyV. (2009). Performance pay and teachers’ effort, productivity and grading ethics. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1979–2011.
34.
LazearE. P. (2003). Teacher incentives. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10, 179–214.
35.
LevacicR. (2009). Teacher incentives and performance: An application of principal–agent theory. Oxford Development Studies, 37(1), 33–46.
36.
LiangG., & AkibaM. (2011, April). Teacher evaluation, performance-related pay and constructivist instruction practices: A statewide survey of middle school mathematics teachers in Missouri. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.
37.
LoebS., MillerL. C., & StrunkK. O. (2009). The state role in teacher compensation. Education Finance and Policy, 4(1), 89–114.
38.
MonkD. H., & JacobsonS. L. (1985). Reforming teacher compensation. Education and Urban Society, 17(2), 223–236.
39.
MontD., & ReesD. I. (1996). The influence of classroom characteristics on high school teacher turnover. Economic Inquiry, 34(1), 152–167.
40.
MuralidharanK., & SundararamanV. (2009). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India (NBER Working Paper No. w15323). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
41.
MurnaneR. J., & CohenD. K. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 1–17.
42.
MurnaneR. J., & OlsenR. J. (1990). The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching: Evidence from North Carolina. Journal of Human Resources, 25(1), 106–124.
43.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washing, DC: Government Printing Office.
44.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.New York: Author.
45.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America's children.New York: Author.
46.
NyeB., KonstantopoulosS., & HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.
47.
OddenA. (2000). New and better forms of teacher compensation are possible. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 361–366.
48.
OddenA., & KelleyC. (2002). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
49.
PodgurskyM. (2009). A market-based perspective on teacher compensation reform. In SpringerM. G. (Ed.), Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American K–12 education.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
50.
PodgurskyM., MonroeR., & WatsonD. (2004). The academic quality of public school teachers: An analysis of entry and exit behavior. Economics of Education Review, 23, 507–518.
51.
PodgurskyM. J., & SpringerM. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: A review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(4), 909–949.
52.
RiceJ. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
53.
RivkinS. G., HanushekE. A., & KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
54.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
SandersW. L., & HornS. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.
57.
SawchukS. (2010). Education groups set forth TIF grant program principles. Education Week, 29(33), 24.
58.
SpringerM. G. (2009). Rethinking teacher compensation policies: Why now, why again? In SpringerM. G. (Ed.), Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American K–12 education (pp. 1–21). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
59.
StrizekG. A., PittsonbergerJ. L., RiordanK. E., LyterD. M., OrlofskyG. F., & GruberK. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
VandevoortL. G., Amrein-BeardsleyA., & BerlinerD. C. (2004). National Board certified teachers and their students’ achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 12(46).
62.
WayneA. J., & YoungsP. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122.
63.
WintersM. A., RitterG. W., GreeneJ. P., & MarchR. (2009). Student outcomes and teacher productivity and perceptions in Arkansas. In SpringerM. G. (Ed.), Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American K–12 education (pp. 273–294). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
64.
WoessmannL. (2011). Cross-country evidence on teacher performance pay. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 404–418.
