TIF districts expected most educators would receive a bonus, inconsistent with guidance for challenging pay-for-performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Districts expected bonuses to be somewhat substantial and differentiated, but expected most educators would receive a bonus, suggesting award criteria were not consistent with TIF guidance for challenging bonuses. → Max 2014

Evidence¶

Max 2014¶

Max, Jeffrey; Constantine, Jill; Wellington, Alison; Hallgren, Kristin; Glazerman, Steven; Chiang, Hanley; Speroni, Cecilia. (2014). Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Implementation and Early Impacts of Pay-for-Performance After One Year. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/evaluation-of-the-teacher-incentive-fund-implementation-and-early-impacts-of-payforperformance-after

q2 · i? · associational · r?

Implementation analysis of all TIF districts' bonus design expectations, reported in the key findings. Grantees expected bonuses to be "somewhat substantial and differentiated," yet most educators were expected to earn one.

"districts expected most educators would receive a bonus, suggesting that the award criteria were not consistent with TIF guidance for challenging pay-for-performance bonuses."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF grant guidance — a broader claim this one bears on
• In the 2010 TIF pay-for-performance programs, over 60% of teachers received a bonus, with average bonuses of about $1,800 and top performers earning more than 3 times the average — related
• The average TIF bonus was about 4% of average teacher salary, below the 5% recommended by TIF grant guidance for substantial bonuses — related