The promise of big payouts to teachers who raise test scores is not a magic bullet. In fact, they may not do much of anything. That’s according to a three-year controlled study conducted by the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University (NCPI). The NCPI study 
, dubbed POINT (Project on Incentives in Teaching), tracked 300 math teachers in grades 5–8 over three years in Nashville Public Schools. The researchers set out to show that an appropriate incentive structure for teachers would lead to improved student performance.
Researchers compared gains in student achievement between two groups of teachers using a value-added model. One group was promised bonuses of $5,000 to $15,000 if student achievement rose to targeted levels over the course of the year. Teachers in the control group were paid normal teacher salaries with no award structure. Teachers were distributed across middle schools so each campus had at least one bonus-eligible teacher and one control group teacher.
The researchers found that teachers who were offered monetary incentives for improved student performance did not produce greater gains than their colleagues who weren’t eligible for incentives. The study concluded that the incentives did not induce teachers “to make substantial changes to their instructional practices or their level of effort.”
Researchers did observe a small difference in student gains between students taught by teachers who were eligible for incentives versus the control group, but only in the 5th grade and only in the second and third years of the study. However, these gains did not last. By the time the student went to the 6th grade, it did not matter if they had had a bonus-eligible teacher in 5th grade. They were improving at the same rate as their peers taught by control group teachers. There were no measurable differences in student outcomes at any of the other grade levels over the three-year study.
Critics of bonuses tied to student test scores have lauded the study as evidence to support their opposition to these types of single-focused incentive plans. Teacher groups and others contend that there’s a faulty assumption behind the idea of paying bonuses to teachers whose students meet test-score targets: They aren’t a student performance cure-all because most teachers are already doing their best. The bonus-for-test-score model assumes teachers are saving their best efforts, just waiting for the right incentive to come along so they can cash in on increased student achievement.
While many teachers support higher pay for top-performing teachers, most feel that incentives tied solely to student performance on standardized tests are too narrowly defined to be effective. That includes 85 percent of the POINT teachers in the study.
Though the Nashville incentives didn’t raise achievement, they did provide greater rewards for the most effective teachers. For some, it is enough to provide greater rewards to the teachers getting the best results.
While the NCPI study indicates that teacher bonuses don’t lead to higher student achievement, its authors are quick to point out that it only examined one type of incentive. There were no provisions for revised evaluation models, new teaching methods, or professional development. Also, the study did not address how incentives and other models of performance pay affect teacher recruiting and retention. Other approaches to performance-based teacher compensation may yield better results.
According to lead NCPI researcher Dr. Matthew Springer, this study is “one step in the right direction” but the search for a better model for teacher pay is still under way and new programs and pay structures need to be rigorously tested and evaluated.
—“Merit Pay Found to Have Little Effect on Achievement,” by Stephen Sawchuk, Education Week online, Sept. 12, 2010.
—“Another Independent Study Finds No Impact From Performance Pay for Teachers,” Texas AFT Legislative Hotline online, Sept. 21, 2010.
—Teacher Pay for Performance: Experimental Evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching, by Matthew G. Springer, Dale Ballou, Laura Hamilton, Vi-Nhuan Le, J.R. Lockwood, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Matthew Pepper, and Brian M. Stecher, National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University, Sept. 21, 2010.
