We report on research examining the revealed preferences of teachers in Denver Public Schools who were given the opportunity to select between remaining on a traditional salary schedule and opting into one of the nation’s high-profile pay reform systems, Denver’s Professional Compensation System for Teachers. The incentive structure creates differential earnings risk for teachers according to their experience and measured effectiveness as well as their staffing assignment and school. We find that teachers are generally responsive to the eligibility criteria, but many teachers who would have earned more under the new system chose not to participate.
BarroJ.BeaulieuN. (2003). Selection and improvement—Physician responses to financial incentives (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 10017). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w10017.pdf
4.
BartlingB.FehrE.MaréchalM. A.SchunkD. (2009). Egalitarianism and competitiveness. American Economic Review, 99, 93–98.
5.
BatemanT. S.SnellS. A. (2004). Management: The new competitive landscape (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
6.
BetebennerD. W. (2007). Estimation of student growth percentiles for the Colorado Student Assessment Program. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
7.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Seattle, WA: Author.
8.
BowenD.BuckS.DeckC.MillsJ.ShulsJ. (2012). Risky business: An experimental analysis of teacher risk preferences. Education Economics, 23, 470–480.
9.
BriggsD.TurnerM.BibilosC.MaulA. (2014). The prospects of teacher pay for performance (CADRE working paper 2014-01). Boulder: University of Colorado.
10.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
11.
CadsbyC.SongF.TaponF. (2007). Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 387–405.
12.
Center for Teaching Quality. (2007). Performance-pay for teachers: Designing systems that students deserve. Washington, DC: Author.
13.
ChingosM. M.WestM. R. (2012). Do more effective teachers earn more outside of the classroom?Education Finance and Policy, 7(1), 8–43.
14.
ClarkR. L.GhentL. S.McDermedA. A. (2006). Plan choice among university faculty. Southern Economic Journal, 72, 560–577.
15.
ClotfelterC. T.GlennieE.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2008). Would higher salaries keep teachers in high-poverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North Carolina. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1352–1370.
16.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education Finance and Policy, 6, 399–438.
17.
Committee for Economic Development. (2004). Investing in learning: School funding policies to foster high performance. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
CostrellR. M.PodgurskyM. (2009). Peaks, cliffs, and valleys: The peculiar incentives in teacher retirement systems and their consequences for school staffing. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 175–211.
19.
DeArmondM.GoldhaberD. (2010). Scrambling the nest egg: How well do teachers understand their pensions, and what do they think about alternative pension structures?Education Finance and Policy, 5, 558–586.
20.
DeeT.WyckoffJ. (2013). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 267–297.
DixitA. (2002). Incentives and organizations in the public sector: An interpretative review. The Journal of Human Resources, 37, 696–727. doi:10.2307/3069614
23.
DohmenT.FalkA. (2010). You get what you pay for: Incentives and selection in the education system. The Economic Journal, 120, 256–271.
24.
DohmenT.FalkA. (2011). Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. American Economic Review, 101, 556–590.
25.
DufloE.HannaR.RyanS. P. (2012). Incentives work: Getting teachers to come to school. American Economic Review, 102: 1241–1278.
26.
EideE.GoldhaberD.BrewerD. (2004). The teacher labour market and teacher quality. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 230–244.
27.
EpsteinL. G. (1999). A definition of uncertainty aversion. The Review of Economic Studies, 66, 579–608.
28.
FryerR. G. (2011). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 16850). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16850
29.
FryerR. G.LevittS. D.SadoffS. (2012). Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through loss aversion: A field experiment (NBER Working Paper Series, pp. 1–36). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w18237.pdf
GlazermanS.SeifullahA. (2012). An evaluation of the Chicago Teacher Advancement Program (Chicago TAP) after four years: Final report. Chicago, IL: Mathematica Policy Research.
32.
GlewweP.IliasN.KremerM. (2003). Teacher incentives (Working paper series). Stanford, CA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
33.
GneezyU.MeierS.Rey-BielP. (2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25, 191–209.
34.
GoldhaberD.DeArmondM.DeBurgomasterS. (2011). Teacher attitudes about compensation reform: Implications for reform implementation. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 64, 441–463.
35.
GoldhaberD.GrossB.PlayerD. (2010). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and persistence in the classroom: Are public schools keeping their best?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1), 57–87.
36.
GoldhaberD.GroutC. (2014). Which plan to choose? The determinants of pension system choice for public school teachers (CEDR working paper 2014-1). Seattle, WA: Center for Education Data & Research.
37.
GoldhaberD.WalchJ. (2012). Strategic pay reform: A student outcomes-based evaluation of Denver’s ProComp teacher pay initiative. Economics of Education Review, 31, 1067–1083.
38.
GoldhaberD.WalchJ.GabeleB. (2014). Does the model matter? Exploring the relationship between different student achievement-based teacher assessments. Statistics and Public Policy, 1, 28–39.
39.
GoodmanS.TurnerL. (2013). The design of teacher incentive pay and educational outcomes: Evidence from the New York City bonus program. Journal of Labor Economics, 31, 409–420.
40.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326–354.
41.
HartogJ.VijverbergW. P. M. (2007). On compensation for risk aversion and skewness affection in wages. Labour Economics, 14, 938–956.
ImazekiJ. (2005). Teacher salaries and teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 24, 431–449.
44.
ImbermanS.LovenheimM. F. (2015). Incentive strength and teacher productivity: Evidence from a group-based teacher incentive pay system. Review of Economics & Statistics, 97, 364–386.
45.
JacksonC. K.RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O. (2014). Teacher effects and teacher-related policies. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 801–825.
46.
JacobB. A.SpringerM. G. (2008). Teacher attitudes toward pay for performance: Evidence from Hillsborough County, Florida. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives, Vanderbilt University.
47.
JacobsB.HartogJ.VijverbergW. (2009). Self-selection bias in estimated wage premiums for earnings risk. Empirical Economics, 37, 271–286.
48.
JacobsonS. L. (1995). Monetary incentives and the reform of teacher compensation: A persistent organizational dilemma. International Journal of Educational Reform, 4, 29–35.
49.
JenkinsS. P. (1995). Easy estimation methods for discrete-time duration models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 57(1), 129–138.
50.
LawlerE. E.III. (2003). Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 396–404.
51.
LawlerE. E.III. (2005). From human resource management to organizational effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 6, 0–14.
52.
LazearE. P. (2000). Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review, 90, 1346–1361.
53.
LazearE. P. (2003). Teacher incentives. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10, 179–214.
54.
LazearE. P.MalmendierU.WeberR. A. (2012). Sorting in experiments with application to social preferences. American Economic Journal, 4(1), 136–163.
55.
MarshJ. A.SpringerM. G.McCaffreyD. F.YuanK.EpsteinS.KoppichJ.. . . PengA. (2011). The big apple for educators: New York City’s experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses. New York, NY: RAND Corporation.
56.
MuralidharanK.SundararamanV. (2008). Teacher incentives in developing countries: Experimental evidence from India (Working Paper 2008-13). National Center on Performance Incentives. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510525
57.
MuralidharanK.SundararamanV. (2011). Teacher opinions on performance pay: Evidence from India. Economics of Education Review, 30, 394–403.
58.
MurnaneR. J.OlsenR. J. (1989). Will there be enough teachers?American Economic Review, 79, 242–246.
59.
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.
60.
NadlerC.WiswallM. (2011). Risk aversion and support for merit pay: Theory and evidence from Minnesota’s Q Comp Program. Education Finance and Policy, 6, 75–104.
61.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Recommendations for the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Removing the roadblocks: How federal policy can cultivate effective teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
62.
NealD. (2011). The design of performance pay in education (Working Paper No. 16710). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
63.
NiederleM. (2014). Gender (NBER Working Paper No. 20788). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
64.
NiederleM.VesterlundL. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1067–1101.
PerezM. (2010). Inequity aversion differences: Experimental evidence among prospective teachers and lawyers. Stanford, CA: Stanford School of Education, Center for Education Policy and Practice (CEPA).
68.
PerezM.MurakiM. (2013). Give me and my colleagues a bonus: Examining teachers’ attitudes toward merit pay. Unpublished draft.
69.
PlayerD. (2009). Monetary returns to academic ability in the public teacher labor market. Economics of Education Review, 28, 277–285.
70.
PodgurskyM.SpringerM. (2007). Teacher performance pay: A review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 909–950.
71.
PrendergastC. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(1), 7–63.
72.
PrinceC. (2002). Attracting well-qualified teachers to struggling schools. American Educator, 26(4), 16–21.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (1993). It’s about time: Using discrete-time survival analysis to study duration and the timing of events. Journal of Education Statistics, 18, 155–195.
78.
SlotnikW. J.SmithM. D.GlassR. J.HelmsB. J.IngwersonD. W. (2004). Catalyst for change: Pay for performance in Denver: Final report. Boston, MA: Community Training and Assistance Center.
79.
SpringerM. G.BallouD.HamiltonL. S.LeV.-N.LockwoodJ. R.McCaffreyD. F.. . . StecherB. M. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the project on incentives in teaching. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
80.
StinebricknerT. R. (1998). An empirical investigation of teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 17, 127–139.
81.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Teacher incentive fund. Washington, DC: Author.
82.
WileyE.GaertnerM.SpindlerE.SubertA. (2008). Denver ProComp evaluation: A mixed-method evaluation of Denver’s alternative teacher compensation system.
83.
YuanK.LeV.McCaffreyD. F.MarshJ. A.HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.SpringerM. G. (2012). Incentive pay programs do not affect teacher motivation or reported practices: Results from three randomized studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 3–22.
