The inequitable distribution of principal effectiveness raises concern among policymakers. Principal sorting likely contributes to wider achievement and opportunity gaps between low- and high-need schools. As a possible policy tool, policymakers proposed performance-based compensation systems (PBCS). Tennessee was one of the states that supported the implementation of PBCS. This study examined the relationship between PBCS and principal job performance in the state, using longitudinal administrative data, principal evaluation data, and unique PBCS data from 2012 to 2019. The study did not find consistently significant, positive relationships between PBCS and principal job performance. However, the relationships were generally more pronounced among high-need schools. The study concludes with detailed discussions about the results, the assumptions behind PBCS, limitations, and implications.
AdamsC. M. (2013). Collective trust: A social indicator of instructional capacity. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311519
2.
BakerB.PunswickE.BeltC. (2010). School leadership stability, principal moves, and departures: Evidence from Missouri. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 523–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10383832
3.
BallouD.BarcyK.CanonK.EhlertM.GronbergT.GurwitM.JansenD.LewisJ.LiJ.PalmerS.ParsonsE.StahlheberS.TaylorL. (2015). Evaluation of Tennessee's strategic compensation programs: Interim findings on design, implementation, and impact in Year 2 (2012–13). Tennessee Consortium on Research, Evaluation & Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University.
BartanenB.HusainA. N.LiebowitzD. D. (2022). Rethinking principal effects on student outcomes (EdWorkingPaper: 22–621). Annenberg Institute at Brown University.
6.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231
7.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
8.
CarterC. D. (2016). An analysis of teacher perceptions of four teacher effectiveness models implemented in school districts across Tennessee. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis]. University of Memphis Digital Commons. https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/etd/1493
9.
CasabiancaJ. M.LockwoodJ. R.McCaffreyD. F. (2015). Trends in classroom observation scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(2), 311–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414539163
10.
ChiangH.SperoniC.HerrmannM.HallgrenK.BurkanderP.WellingtonA. (2017). Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final report on implementation and impacts of pay-for-performance across four years (NCEE 2017-4004). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
11.
ClotfelterC.LaddH. F.VigdorJ.WheelerJ. (2007). High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85(5), 1345–1379.
12.
Cohen-VogelL. (2011). “Staffing to the test”: Are today's school personnel practices evidence based?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711419845
13.
CullenJ. B.MazzeoM. J. (2007). Implicit performance awards: An empirical analysis of the labor market for public school administrators. Northwestern University.
14.
DayD. V.RiggioR. E.TanS. J.CongerJ. A. (2021). Advancing the science of 21st-century leadership development: Theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 101557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101557
15.
de ChaisemartinC.D’HaultfoeuilleX. (2020a). Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects. American Economic Review, 110(9), 2964–2996. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181169
16.
de ChaisemartinC.D’HaultfoeuilleX. (2020b). Difference-in-differences estimators of intertemporal treatment effects. Cornell University.
17.
de ChaisemartinC.D’HaultfoeuilleX.GuyonvarchY. (2021). DID_MULTIPLEGT: Statamodule to estimate sharp difference-in-difference designs with multiple groups and periods. Statistical software component S458643. Boston College Department of Economics. http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/bocode/d
18.
DeMatthewsD. E.ReyesP.CarrolaP.EdwardsW.JamesL. (2023). Novice principal burnout: Exploring secondary trauma, working conditions, and coping strategies in an urban district. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(1), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.1917624
19.
DuFourR.DuFourR.EakerR. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree.
20.
FieldsA. (2018). A qualitative case study of teacher and school leaders’ perspectives of Tennessee's differentiated pay plans (Publication No. 10977791). [Doctoral dissertation, Union University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
21.
GaretM. S.WayneA. J.BrownS.RicklesJ.SongM.ManzeskeD. (2017). The impact of providing performance feedback to teachers and principals (NCEE 2018-4001). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
22.
GoddardR.GoddardY.KimE. S.MillerR. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925
23.
GoldhaberD. (2007). Principal compensation: More research needed on a promising reform. Center for American Progress.
24.
GoldringE. B.ClarkM. A.RubinM.RogersL. K.GrissomJ. A.GillB.KautzT.McCulloughM.NeelM.BurnettA. (2020). Changing the principal supervisor role to better support principals: Evidence from the Principal Supervisor Initiative. Mathematica/Vanderbilt University.
25.
GoldringE. B.GrissomJ. A.RubinM.NeumerskiC. M.CannataM.DrakeT.SchuermannP. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15575031
26.
GrissomJ. A.BartanenB. (2019). Strategic retention: Principal effectiveness and teacher turnover in multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 514–555. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283121879793
27.
GrissomJ. A.BartanenB.MitaniH. (2019). Principal sorting and the distribution of principal quality. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419850094
28.
GrissomJ. A.BlissettR. S. L.MitaniH. (2018). Evaluating school principals: Supervisor ratings of principal practice and principal job performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 446–472. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718783883
29.
GrissomJ. A.EgaliteA. J.LindsayC. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. Wallace Foundation.
30.
GrissomJ. A.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714523831
31.
GrissomJ. A.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2017). Strategic staffing? How performance pressures affect the distribution of teachers within schools and resulting student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1079–1116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716301
32.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211402663
33.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS.MitaniH. (2015). Principal time management skills: Explaining patterns in principals’ time use, job stress, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(6), 773–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0117
34.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS.NakashimaN. A. (2014). Strategic involuntary teacher transfers and teacher performance: Examining equity and efficiency. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 112–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21732
35.
HallingerP.HeckR. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203
36.
HamiltonL. S.EngbergJ.SteinerE. D.NelsonC. A.YuanK. (2012). Improving school leadership through support, evaluation, and incentives. RAND.
HeinrichC. J.MarschkeG. (2010). Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20484
39.
HerrmannM.RossC. (2016). Measuring principals’ effectiveness: Results from New Jersey's first year of statewide principal evaluation (REL 2016-156). Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
40.
HeyburnS.LewisJ.RitterG. (2010). Compensation reform and design preferences of Teacher Incentive Fund grantees. National Center on Performance Incentives, Vanderbilt University.
41.
HillA. J.JonesD. B. (2020). The impacts of performance pay on teacher effectiveness and retention: Does teacher gender matter?The Journal of Human Resources, 55(1), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.2.0216.7719R3
42.
HolleyM. J. (2009). A study of the school principal labor market in Arkansas: Implications for incentive-based compensation policies to improve principal quality. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville]. University of Arkansas.
43.
HollingworthL.OlsenD.Asikin-GarmagerA.WinnK. M. (2018). Initiating conversations and opening doors: How principals establish a positive building culture to sustain school improvement efforts. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(6), 1014–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217720461
44.
HorngE. L.KlasikD.LoebS. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 463–640. https://doi.org/10.1086/653625
45.
HunterS. B. (2020). The unintended effects of policy-assigned teacher observations: Examining the validity of observation scores. AERA Open, 6(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420929276
46.
JenkinsB. (2009). What it takes to be an instructional leader. Principal, 88(3), 34–37.
47.
KoolsM.StollL. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation? (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 137). OECD Publishing.
48.
KozlowskiK. P.LauenD. L. (2019). Understanding teacher pay for performance: Flawed assumptions and disappointing results. Teachers College Record, 121(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912100206
49.
LauenD. L.GaddisS. M. (2016). Accountability pressure, academic standards, and educational triage. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715598577
50.
LavyV. (2008). Does raising the principal's wage improve the school's outcomes? Quasi-experimental evidence from an unusual policy experiment in Israel. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(4), 639–662. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9442.2008.00555.x
51.
LoebS.KalogridesD.HorngE. L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373710369833
52.
LouisK. S.LeithwoodK.WahlstromK. L.AndersonS. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. University of Minnesota.
53.
LouisK. S.MurphyJ. (2017). Trust, caring and organizational learning: The leader's role. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2016-0077
54.
MaX.MarionR. (2024). How does leadership affect teacher collaboration? Evidence from teachers in US schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 35(2), 116–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2024.2330533
55.
MitaniH. (2024). Performance-based compensation systems and principal labor markets. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
56.
NapolesJ. (2019). Differentiated pay in Tennessee school districts. Offices of Research and Educational Accountability, Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury.
57.
NelsonJ. L.GrissomJ. A.CameronM. L. (2021). Performance, process, and interpersonal relationships: Explaining principals’ perceptions of principal evaluation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(4), 641–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X211009295
58.
PhamL. D.NguyenT. D.SpringerM. G. (2021). Teacher merit pay: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 527–566. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220905580
RodriguezL. A.SpringerM. G.SheltonG. (2019). Transforming the pool of tenured teachers in Tennessee. Tennessee Education Research Alliance.
61.
RonfeldtM.FarmerS. O.McQueenK.GrissomJ. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562
62.
RoseR. (2012). The relationship of compensation to job attraction and performance in public schools. Issues in Educational Research, 22(2), 180–195.
63.
SebastianJ.AllensworthE. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436273
64.
SebastianJ.AllensworthE.HuangH. (2016). The role of teacher leadership in how principals influence classroom instruction and student learning. American Journal of Education, 123(1), 69–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/688169
65.
SteinerE. D.DoanS.WooA.GittensA. D.LawrenceR. A.BerdieL.WolfeR.GreerL.SchwartzH. L. (2022). Restoring teacher and principal well-being is an essential step for rebuilding schools: Findings from the State of the American Teacher and State of the American Principal Surveys. RAND.
66.
StollL.BolamR.McMahonA.WallaceM.ThomasS. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https://doi.org/0.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
67.
SunL.AbrahamS. (2021). Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006
68.
Tennessee Department of Education. (2018). Every Student Succeeds Act: Building on success in Tennessee – ESSA State Plan. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/documents/TN_ESSA_State_Plan_Approved.pdf
Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning.
75.
WessonL. (2013). Trends in teacher compensation: Focus on alternative salary schedules. Offices of Research and Educational Accountability, Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury.
76.
YuanK.LeV.McCaffreyD. F.MarshJ. A.HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.SpringerM. G. (2013). Incentive pay programs do not affect teacher motivation or reported practices: Results from three randomized studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712462625
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
