Differences in the Effects of Three Types of Incentive Pay Programs on Teachers’ Attitudes and Practices

• In Event: Roundtable Session 32
  In Roundtable Session: Designing and Implementing Educator Performance Pay Programs: Lessons From the Field

Abstract

1. Objectives
From 2006 to 2010, the Metro Nashville Public School District (MNPSD) in Tennessee (Springer et al., 2010), the Round Rock Independent School District (RRISD) in Texas (Springer et al., 2011), and the New York City (NYC) public schools (Marsh et al., 2011) implemented an individual-, team-, and school-based incentive pay program, respectively. This study examined differences in the effects of these three programs on teachers’ attitudes and practices.
2. Perspectives
Whether to reward educators based on individual-, team-, or school-level performance is a critical decision when designing incentive pay programs (Podgursky & Springer, 2006). Prior studies provide conflicting information about teachers’ attitudes about different performance-based pay programs (Ballou & Podgursky, 1993; Farkas, Johnson, Duffet, Moye, & Vine, 2003; Goldhaber, DeArmond, & DeBurgomaster, 2011; Jacob & Springer, 2007). This paper drew on common teacher survey items used in the evaluations of three different incentive pay programs to understand differences in teachers’ attitudes toward and behavioral responses to financial incentives.
3. Methods
All three incentive pay programs randomized their unit of incentive recipients into treatment (eligible for bonus) or control (ineligible for bonus) groups to examine the effect of the incentive on teachers and students. In the MNPSD, 294 teachers participated in the program in 2006-07, with 152 teachers in the treatment group and 142 teachers in the control group. In the RRISD, 78 teaching teams participated in 2008-09 and 81 teams participated 2009-10, with 39 and 40 teams assigned to the treatment group in each year of study, respectively. The NYCDOE school-wide performance bonus program included 205 treatment schools and 168 control schools.
4. Data
All three studies surveyed teachers on their attitudes toward and behavioral responses to their incentive pay programs. All participating teachers in the MNSPD and RRISD were surveyed each year of the program. In NYC, seven teachers from each participating schools were randomly sampled and surveyed in the third year of the program. Response rates were above 90 percent for both groups across years in the MNPSD and RRISD and between 55 to 60 percent for two groups in NYC.
We compared teachers’ responses to similar survey items across the three surveys. We used ordinal logit regression methods that controlled for incentive pay programs, treatment status, and teacher characteristics. Standard errors were adjusted to account for school clustering and the complex sampling design.
5. Results
Findings indicate similarities and differences across the three program types. For example, teachers in the individual- and school-based programs had similar views about the fairness of the program and bonus size. The percent of teachers who agreed that the program and bonus did not affect their practice increased as the unit of incentive recipient grew (i.e., from individual to team to school). Also, fewer teachers in the individual-based program than that in the team-based program reported increased resentment among colleagues as a result of program participation.
6. Significance
Results from this study add to the body of literature about teachers’ attitudes toward and reactions to different types of pay-for-performance systems.

Authors

• Vi-Nhuan Le, RAND Corporation

• Kun Yuan, RAND Corporation

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California