Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) educator evaluation and compensation strategies¶

Element · All elements
Evidence · 8 claims (3 for, 4 mixed, 1 against) · 5 studies (5 causal), q2–q3 · 0 of 5 report an effect size · 7 claims rest on one study

Description¶

This element comprises the two educator-effectiveness strategies examined in the brief's underlying IES studies: performance feedback, in which "research-based performance measures" are used "to evaluate educators and provide them with feedback," and pay-for-performance, which offered "bonuses to educators based on their performance ratings." The brief evaluates each strategy's effects on student achievement and educator satisfaction over multi-year implementations.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Performance feedback requires research-based performance measures for evaluating educators
• Pay-for-performance requires performance ratings on which bonuses are based

Constraints¶

• The brief notes no single large-scale study evaluated the effects of a full, comprehensive program like those supported by TIF and TSL

Target Learners¶

• K-12 students taught by educators participating in TIF-supported programs

Target Learning Goals¶

• Improving student math and reading achievement through educator evaluation and incentive strategies

Claims¶

• Educators were largely receptive to evaluation and compensation strategies, with 65 to 84 percent satisfied with feedback and pay-for-performance improving some job satisfaction [+W]
• 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 [~W]
• 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 [+W]
• Many teachers misunderstood whether they were eligible for performance bonuses or the amount they could earn [~W]
• 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 [~W]
• Few districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF grant guidance [-W]
• The average TIF bonus was about 4% of average teacher salary, below the 5% recommended by TIF grant guidance for substantial bonuses [~W]
• 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 [+W]

Related Elements¶

• Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) performance-based compensation grants for high-need schools
• Mathematica multi-site random assignment evaluation of TIF pay-for-performance bonuses

Examples¶

• Design pay-for-performance bonus structures that align with grant guidance and clearly communicate eligibility to teachers

Key Sources¶

• Andrew Wayne, Michael Garet, Alison Wellington, Hanley Chiang. (2018). Promoting Educator Effectiveness: The Effects of Two Key Strategies. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/