Policy Challenge
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
Program Type
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
6
3
10
Learning In Primary
Monetary incentives to teachers (eLP)
11
1
Evaluation Effect Average Age Observations Experimental Evaluation Country Intervention
Fryer 2011 i -1 Grade 4 172,915 Yes United States Schools received payments for meeting annual performance targets
Glewwe 2003 11 Grade 6 49,940 Yes Kenya Teachers received prizes based on test performance or improvement
Muralidharan 2011 i 14 Grade 3 28,097 Yes India Teacher received bonus for improvement in her students test scores
Muralidharan 2011 ii 16 Grade 3 28,097 Yes India Teacher received bonus for improvement in school-level test scores
Glazerman 2012 0 Grade 6 4,597 Yes United States School teaching and other staff received bonuses based on performance
Fryer 2015 ii 3 Grade 4 2,261 Yes United States Teacher bonus based on own students scores
Fryer 2015 iii 18 Grade 4 2,261 Yes United States Teacher bonus based on group performance, expected payment advanced
Fryer 2015 iv -4 Grade 4 2,261 Yes United States Teacher bonus based on groups test scores
Fryer 2015 i 3 Grade 4 2,261 Yes United States Teacher bonus based on own students scores, expected payment advanced
Duflo 2012 i 14 8 1,752 Yes India Teachers were paid based on the number of days they attended school

Graph of Effects

This graph shows the effects of [Number of Evaluations] evaluations of [Program Type] programs. The first evaluation, [Evaluation name 1], estimated an effect of [Estimated effect Eval. 1] points (graphed with the top grey circle). Because this is an estimate, there is uncertainty about what the true effect is. But we know that the true effect will probably lie between a low value of [True effect lie between – Low value, Eval. 1] and a high value of [True effect lie between – High value, Eval. 1] (graphed with the top horizontal line). We can combine the estimates from all the evaluations and compute an average effect of [Estimated effect, Average] (graphed with the black circle). There is also uncertainty about where the true average effect is. But we know that the true average effect probably lies between [True effect lie between – Low value, Average] and [True effect lie between – High value, Average] points (graphed with the bottom horizontal line).
Evaluation Effects Low Value High Value Weight in Average Effect (%)
Duflo 2012 i 14 4 24 13
Fryer 2011 i -1 -4 2 22
Fryer 2015 i 3 -8 14 4
Fryer 2015 ii 3 -7 13 4
Fryer 2015 iii 18 8 28 4
Fryer 2015 iv -4 -16 7 3
Glazerman 2012 0 -5 5 20
Glewwe 2003 11 2 20 14
Muralidharan 2011 i 14 6 22 8
Muralidharan 2011 ii 16 7 24 8
Overall