Educators' understanding of the TIF program improved in year two, but more than one-third of teachers still did not know they were eligible for a bonus and underestimated bonus size¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the program's second year, more teachers understood their bonus eligibility and evaluation than in the first year, yet more than one-third still did not understand they were eligible, and teachers believed the largest bonuses were only about two-fifths the actual maximum size. → Chiang 2015

Evidence¶

Chiang 2015¶

Chiang, H., Wellington, A., Hallgren, K., Speroni, C., Herrmann, M., Glazerman, S., & Constantine, J. (2015). Implementation and Impacts of Pay-for-Performance: The 2010 Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Grantees After Two Years (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/

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Implementation survey findings from the TIF evaluation's second year: understanding of bonus eligibility and evaluation improved relative to year one, but "more than one-third of teachers still did not understand they were eligible for a bonus". No effect size is printed.

"In the program’s second year, more teachers understood their eligibility for bonuses and how they were being evaluated than in the first year. Yet more than one-third of teachers still did not understand they were eligible for a bonus."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• 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
• Some aspects of TIF implementation improved between years one and two while others, including bonus awareness, remained challenging — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Many teachers misunderstood whether they were eligible for performance bonuses or the amount they could earn — a broader claim this one bears on
• The TIF evaluation is designed to estimate impacts of performance pay on student achievement and on educators' attitudes, awareness, mobility, and recruitment — related
• Implementation of the pay-for-performance policy differed from the envisioned approach, with about 40 percent of teachers unaware they were eligible for a performance bonus — related
• Many teachers had only a limited understanding of the TIF bonus program: about 40 percent of eligible teachers knew they could receive a bonus, and teachers typically estimated the maximum bonus at about 40 percent of the actual maximum — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• In the 10 evaluation districts, educators did not always understand the performance measures and pay-for-performance bonuses used for TIF — related
• More than half of teachers in the evaluation districts did not know they were eligible for pay-for-performance bonuses — related
• Teachers in the evaluation districts underestimated the size of pay-for-performance bonuses they could earn through TIF — a broader claim this one bears on
• Many educators misunderstood the performance measures and the pay-for-performance bonuses under TIF — a broader claim this one bears on