Teacher Incentive Program with Loss Aversion
About the Intervention
This teacher incentive program targets K-8 classroom teachers, reading and math interventionists in Chicago Heights, IL. Teachers are randomly assigned to receive performance-based financial rewards (up to $8,000, expected value $4,000) based on their students' end-of-year test score improvements relative to similar peers. The program tests two framing approaches: 'Gain' treatments where teachers receive bonuses at year-end, and 'Loss' treatments where teachers receive $4,000 upfront and must return money if students underperform. Within each framing, teachers receive either individual or team-based rewards. The intervention runs for one school year (2010-2011), with rewards calculated using the 'pay for percentile' methodology. Teachers attend informational meetings in October and receive midyear performance reports. No special training, materials, or classroom resources are required beyond the financial incentive structure itself.
Statistical Findings
Positive effect: on math test scores in Loss treatment (0.201 to 0.398 standard deviations)
No effect: on math test scores in Gain treatment
Positive effect: on state math exam scores in Loss treatment (0.201 to 0.398 standard deviations)
No effect: on state math exam scores in Gain treatment
More Intervention Details
Focus Areas
Economically DisadvantagedPrograms & Services
General EducationDelivery Methods
N/ADisability Support
N/ATarget Groups
Teachers/Instructional TeamsCitation
Fryer, R. G., Levitt, S. D., List, J. & Sadoff, S. (2012). Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives Through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment (ED533911). ERIC. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18237.
Study Demographics
These charts show the demographic makeup and geographic setting of the research study that evaluated this intervention's efficacy. When assessing the fit of an intervention, consider whether it was found effective in a context similar to your own.
Participant Race
What was the racial breakdown of this study's data sample?
Participant Gender
What was the gender breakdown of this study's data sample?
Other Participant Characteristics
Geographical Setting
What was the setting of this study?