Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF grant guidance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 causal r? · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-10-16 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses in a way that aligned well with TIF grant guidance. → Alison Wellington 2016

q2 i? Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses in a way that aligned well with TIF grant guidance. → Wellington 2016

Evidence¶

Alison Wellington 2016¶

Alison Wellington, Hanley Chiang, Kristin Hallgren, Cecilia Speroni, Mariesa Herrmann, Paul Burkander. (2016). Implementation and Impacts of Pay-for-Performance: The 2010 Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Grantees After Three Years (Study Snapshot). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/

q3 · i? · causal · r?

An implementation finding from the national evaluation of 2010 TIF grantees in the 2013–2014 school year, the third of four years of implementation. The snapshot reports that "Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF grant guidance."

"Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF grant guidance."

Wellington 2016¶

Wellington, Alison; Chiang, Hanley; Hallgren, Kristin; Speroni, Cecilia; Herrmann, Mariesa; Burkander, Paul. (2016). Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Implementation and Impacts of Pay-for-Performance After Three Years (Final Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Implementation analysis of all 2010 TIF grantees in the 2013–2014 school year, the third of four years of implementation; the report's key finding states that "Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF grant guidance."

"Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF grant guidance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Many teachers misunderstood whether they were eligible for performance bonuses or the amount they could earn — related
• After three years of Teacher Incentive Fund implementation, pay-for-performance bonuses had small positive impacts on student math and reading achievement in ten evaluation districts — related
• The average TIF bonus was about 4% of average teacher salary, below the 5% recommended by TIF grant guidance for substantial bonuses — related
• Offering pay-for-performance bonuses in 10 TIF districts increased student reading achievement by 1 percentile point after two years, with a similar-magnitude but statistically non-significant math effect — related
• Providing educators with performance feedback and offering pay-for-performance bonuses can improve student achievement, with positive cumulative impacts on math or reading in some years — related
• Districts implemented most components of the performance-based compensation system throughout all four years, but fewer than half planned to keep offering performance bonuses once the grant ended — related
• On average, states required less than half of eight RTT-aligned teacher evaluation policies, though RTT states required more of these policies than non-RTT states — related
• The TIF evaluation provides an in-depth analysis of implementation and pay-for-performance impacts for ten districts after three years, and program-wide implementation descriptions for all 2010 grantees — related
• TIF districts expected most educators would receive a bonus, inconsistent with guidance for challenging pay-for-performance — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Fewer than half of districts implemented all four required components of TIF, making full implementation challenging — related