Education policymakers have shown increased interest in incentive programs for teachers based on the outcomes of their students. This article examines a program in which bonuses were awarded to teams of middle school teachers based on their collective contribution to student test score gains. The study employs a randomized controlled trial to examine effects of the bonus program over the course of an academic year, with the experiment repeated a second year, and finds no significant effects on the achievement of students or the attitudes and practices of teachers. The lack of effects of team-level pay for performance in this study is consistent with other recent experiments studying the short-term effects of bonus awards for individual performance or whole-school performance.
AzordeganJ.ByrnettP.CampbellK.GreenmanJ.CoulterT. (2005). Diversifying teacher compensation. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/65/83/6583.pdf
2.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.
3.
BergP.AppelbaumE.BaileyT.KallebergA. (1996). The performance effects of modular production in the apparel industry. Industrial Relations, 35(3), 356–373.
4.
CheY.YooS. (2001). Optimal incentives for teams. American Economic Review, 91(3), 525–541.
5.
CondlyS. J.ClarkR. E.StolovitchH. D. (2003). The effects of incentives on workplace performance: A meta-analytic review of research studies. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16(3), 46–63.
6.
EfronB.TibshiraniR. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
7.
FirestoneW. A.PennellJ. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489–525.
8.
FryerR. G. (2011). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
9.
GlazermanS.SeifullahA. (2010). An evaluation of the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) in Chicago: Year two impact report (Reference Number 6319-520). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
10.
GlewweP.IliasN.KremerM. (2010). Teacher incentives. American Economic Journal, 2(3), 205–227.
11.
GratzD. B. (2009). The problem with performance pay. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 76–79.
12.
HamiltonB. H.NickersonJ. A.OwanH. (2003). Team incentives and worker heterogeneity: An empirical analysis of the impact of teams on productivity and participation. Journal of Political Economy, 111(3), 465–497.
13.
HoerrT (1998). A case for merit pay. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(4), 326–327.
14.
KandelE.LazearE. P. (1992). Peer pressure and partnerships. Journal of Political Economy, 100(4), 801–817.
15.
KaufmanB. E. (2008). Work motivation: Insights from economics. In KanferR.ChenG. (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 588–600). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
16.
LavyV. (2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 87–109.
17.
LazearE. P. (1998). Personnel economics for managers. New York: Wiley.
18.
MarshJ. A.SpringerM. G.McCaffreyD. F.YuanK.EpsteinS.KoppichJ.KalraN.DiMartinoC.PengA. (2011). A big apple for educators: New York City’s experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses (MG-1114-FPS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
19.
MayerD. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.
20.
McCaffreyD. F.HanB.LockwoodJ. R. (2009). Incentive system design and measurement. In SpringerM. G. (Ed.), Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American K-12 education. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
21.
MilanowskiA. (1999). Measurement error or meaningful change? The consistency of school achievement in two school-based performance award programs. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(4), 343–363.
22.
MilanowskiA. T. (2007, Spring). Performance pay system preferences of students preparing to be teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 2(2), 111–132.
23.
MuralidharanK.SundararamanV. (2011). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. The Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39–77.
24.
OddenA. (2000). New and better forms of teacher compensation are possible. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 361–366.
25.
PfefferJ. (1995). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
26.
RiceJ. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
27.
RosenS. (1986). The theory of equalizing differences. In AshenfelterO. C.LayardR. (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 1). Oxford: North-Holland.
28.
RosenholtzS. (1989). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
SaretskyG. (1975). The John Henry effect: Potential confounder of experimental vs. control group approaches to the evaluation of educational innovations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.
31.
SolmonL.PodgurskyM. (2001). The pros and cons of performance-based compensation. Pasadena, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
32.
SpringerM. G.BallouD.HamiltonL.LeV.LockwoodJ. R.McCaffreyD.PepperM.StecherB. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the project on incentives in teaching. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University.
33.
SpringerM. G.LewisJ. L.PodgurskyM. J.EhlertM. W.TaylorL. L.LopezO. S.PengA. (2009). Governor’s Educator Excellence Grant (GEEG) Program: Year three evaluation report. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives.
34.
ThomasK. W. (2009). Intrinsic motivation at work: What really drives employee management (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
35.
WrightS. P.SandersW. L.RiversJ. C. (2006). Measurement of academic growth of individual students toward variable and meaningful academic standards. In LissitzR. (Ed.), Longitudinal and value added models of student performance. Maple Grove, Minnesota: JAM Press.
