Policy Challenge
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
Program Type
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
4
4
14
Learning In Secondary
Monetary incentives to teachers (eLS)
12
-3
Evaluation Effect Average Age Observations Experimental Evaluation Country Intervention
Martins 2009 -5 N/A 664,215 No Portugal Teachers progression along payment scale conditional on performance
Fryer 2011 -3 Grade 9 205,958 Yes United States Schools received payments for meeting annual performance targets
Goodman 2010 -2 Grade 5 309 Yes United States Schools received payments for meeting annual performance targets
Marsh 2011 -2 Grade 5 121,741 Yes United States Schools received awards for meeting annual performance targets
Springer 2012 0 Grade 7 3,827 Yes United States Teachers received $5976-$6529 if their team was among the best third
Lavy 2009 0 Grade 10 2,496 No Israel Teachers were rewarded based on students pass rates and exam results
Springer 2010 3 Grade 7 12,311 Yes United States Awards to teachers if their students improved on standardized tests
Behrman 2012 ii 4 Grade 11 36,101 Yes Mexico Teacher was rewarded or penalized based on her students achievement
Fryer 2012 iv 11 Grade 6 1,311 Yes United States Teacher bonus based on groups test scores
Imberman 2012 14 Grade 10 232,869 No United States Teachers received awards based on yearly students learning
Fryer 2012 i 16 Grade 6 1,310 Yes United States Teacher bonus based on own students scores, expected payment advanced
Fryer 2012 ii 23 Grade 6 1,310 Yes United States Teacher bonus based on own students scores
Fryer 2012 iii 36 Grade 6 1,311 Yes United States Teacher bonus based on group performance, expected payment advanced
Behrman 2012 iii 38 Grade 11 36,101 Yes Mexico Teachers and students were rewarded based on performance

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 (%)
Behrman 2012 ii 4 2 6 6
Behrman 2012 iii 38 36 40 6
Fryer 2011 -3 -5 -1 11
Fryer 2012 i 16 -1 33 2
Fryer 2012 ii 23 7 39 2
Fryer 2012 iii 36 20 52 2
Fryer 2012 iv 11 -4 26 2
Goodman 2010 -2 -19 15 7
Imberman 2012 14 5 23 9
Lavy 2009 0 -6 6 10
Marsh 2011 -2 -5 1 11
Martins 2009 -5 -8 -2 11
Springer 2010 3 0 6 11
Springer 2012 0 -7 7 10
Overall