Teacher Incentive Fund:

Final Report on the Implementation of Performance Pay Systems 

by the First and Second Cohorts of Grantees

Teacher Incentive Fund:

Final Report on the Implementation of Performance Pay Systems

by the First and Second Cohorts of Grantees

Policy and Program Studies Service

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

U.S. Department of Education

Data collected by:

SRI International

Urban Institute

Berkeley Policy Associates

June 2016
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-04-CO-0040 with SRI

International. Andrew Abrams served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed

herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise

mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this

publication contains information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs.

Inclusion of such information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department.

U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr.

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Amy McIntosh

Deputy Assistant Secretary

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger

Director 

June 2016 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service,

Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report on the Implementation of Performance Pay Systems by the First and

Second Cohorts of Grantees, Washington, D.C., 2016. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www.ed.gov/offices/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq.

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at:

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20202.

Content Contact: 

Andrew Abrams

Phone: 202-401-1232

Email: Andrew.Abrams@ed.gov
Contents

Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................iii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. v

Chapter 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................1

• Background on the Teacher Incentive Fund .............................................................1

• Use of Locally Developed Strategies or External Models ..........................................3

• Study Design............................................................................................................4

Chapter 2. Incentive Award Size and Distribution ....................................................................9

Chapter 3. Composition of Incentive Awards.........................................................................17

Chapter 4. Perspectives of Participating Educators................................................................21

• Communication, Understanding, and Motivation...................................................21

• Fairness .................................................................................................................22

• Stress and Satisfaction ...........................................................................................22

• Perceptions of TIF Contributions............................................................................23

Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................................................35

Appendix A. Authorizing Legislation ......................................................................................37

Appendix B. Payout Data .......................................................................................................39

Appendix C. Standard Error Tables ........................................................................................45

i 
ii
Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Grants awarded to TIF Cohorts 1 and 2.................................................................................................... 6

Exhibit 2. Number of participating schools, teachers, and administrators in TIF Cohorts 1 and 2, by grantee........... 7

Exhibit 3. Type of performance pay system and previous experience with performance pay in TIF Cohorts 1 and 2, 

by grantee..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Exhibit 4. Average teacher and administrator incentive awards............................................................................. 10

Exhibit 5. Average award sizes as a percentage of average base salaries for teacher and administrators ............... 10

Exhibit 6. Average incentive awards for teachers and administrators, across all award recipients within each 

grantee ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

Exhibit 7. Number of grantees providing average teacher and administrator incentive awards of various size levels

................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 8. Percentage of teachers and administrators earning incentive awards of various size levels.................... 12

Exhibit 9. Number of grantees providing average teacher and administrator incentive awards of various size levels 

(as a percentage of average base salary)...................................................................................................... 13

Exhibit 10. Range of teacher award amounts, by award rate................................................................................. 14

Exhibit 11. Range of administrator award amounts, by award rate........................................................................ 15

Exhibit 12. Number of grantees by percentage of teacher and administrator participants that received incentive 

awards........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Exhibit 13. Number of grantees including various components in teacher and administrator incentive awards...... 18

Exhibit 14. Percentage of all incentive payout dollars awarded for various components........................................ 19

Exhibit 15. Number of grantees awarding various percentages of their incentive dollars for each component....... 19

Exhibit 16. Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement that the 

performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators............................................................... 23

Exhibit 17. Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement that the 

performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators, by grantee size...................................... 24

Exhibit 18. Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of understanding of certain aspects of their 

performance pay project............................................................................................................................. 25

Exhibit 19. Percentage of principals who reported various degrees of understanding of certain aspects of their 

performance pay project............................................................................................................................. 26

Exhibit 20. Percentage of educators who reported receiving various types of support to help them earn an 

incentive award........................................................................................................................................... 27

Exhibit 21. Percentage of educators who reported various degrees of agreement about whether the size of the 

possible award was large enough to motivate them to earn it...................................................................... 28

Exhibit 22. Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement about the fairness of 

certain aspects of their performance pay project......................................................................................... 29

Exhibit 23. Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of agreement with certain statements about the 

performance pay system’s fairness and effectiveness, by award rate........................................................... 30

Exhibit 24. Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of agreement with statements about their job 

satisfaction.................................................................................................................................................. 31

iii
Exhibit 25. Percentage of educators who reported various degrees of agreement with statements about the effects 

of performance pay on attracting and retaining effective teachers............................................................... 32

Exhibit 26. Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement with statements 

about whether teachers worked harder or altered their instructional practices due to performance pay ..... 33

Exhibit B-1. Payout awards for teachers: averages across award recipients and across all participants, minimum 

award, maximum award, and award rate..................................................................................................... 41

Exhibit B-2. Payout awards for administrators: averages across award recipients and across all participants, 

minimum award, maximum award, and award rate..................................................................................... 42

Exhibit B-3. Teacher payout awards by component............................................................................................... 43

Exhibit B-4. Administrator payout awards by component...................................................................................... 44

Exhibit C-1. Item-level response rates for teacher and principal surveys................................................................ 46

Exhibit C-2. Standard errors for Exhibit 16: Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of 

agreement that the performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators................................ 47

Exhibit C-3. Standard errors for Exhibit 17: Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of 

agreement that the performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators, by grantee size ....... 48

Exhibit C-4. Standard errors for Exhibit 18: Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of understanding 

of certain aspects of their performance pay project..................................................................................... 49

Exhibit C-5. Standard errors for Exhibit 19: Percentage of principals who reported various degrees of understanding 

of certain aspects of their performance pay project..................................................................................... 49

Exhibit C-6. Standard errors for Exhibit 20: Percentage of educators who reported receiving various 

types of support to help them earn an incentive award ............................................................................... 50

Exhibit C-7. Standard errors for Exhibit 21: Percentage of educators who reported various degrees of agreement 

about whether the size of the possible award was large enough to motivate them to earn it....................... 50

Exhibit C-8. Standard errors for Exhibit 22: Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of 

agreement about the fairness of certain aspects of their performance pay project ...................................... 51

Exhibit C-9. Standard errors for Exhibit 23: Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of agreement 

with certain statements about the performance pay system’s fairness and effectiveness, by award rate...... 52

Exhibit C-10. Standard errors for Exhibit 24: Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of agreement 

with statements about their job satisfaction................................................................................................ 53

Exhibit C-11. Standard errors for Exhibit 25: Percentage of educators who reported various degrees of agreement 

with statements about the effects of performance pay on attracting and retaining effective teachers ......... 54

Exhibit C-12. Standard errors for Exhibit 26: Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of 

agreement with statements about whether teachers worked harder or altered their instructional practices 

due to performance pay .............................................................................................................................. 55

iv
Executive Summary

The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) was first authorized in 2006 to support efforts to develop and 

implement performance-based compensation systems for teachers and principals in high-need 

schools. This study examined program implementation in the first two cohorts of grantees 

(2006 and 2007), a total of 33 grantees. All 33 grantees implemented performance pay systems 

for principals and other school administrators; 31 grantees also included teachers in 

their performance pay systems.

The authorizing statute specifies that grantees’ performance pay systems are to provide 

incentive awards to principals and teachers based on gains in student academic achievement, 

classroom evaluations, and other factors and to provide educators with incentives to take on 

additional responsibilities and leadership roles. The grantees examined in this study made 

awards to educators based on a number of factors in addition to those listed in the legislation, 

such as performance evaluations (which could include classroom observations, reviews of 

lesson plans, and feedback from peers and students); supports for improving practice such as 

mentoring, coaching, and participating in professional development; and incentives for teaching 

in hard-to-staff schools or subjects.

This report presents data from teacher and principal surveys conducted in spring 2011 and from 

an analysis of incentive award payouts, primarily for the 2010–11 school year. Survey response 

rates were 87 percent for the teacher survey and 74 percent for the principal survey.1 Thirtyone of the 33 grantees provided payout data; 28 of these provided data for 2010–11 and three 

provided data for 2009–10. A previous report (2012) provided information on early 

implementation based on an earlier round of payout data, interviews, and extant documents.2

Key findings from this report include: 

• Across all educators who received an award, the average teacher incentive award was

$3,651, and the average administrator incentive award was $5,508. These average

awards represented approximately 8 percent of average teacher salaries and

approximately 6 percent of average principal salaries.3

• Within grantees, the average teacher award ranged from $1,170 for the grantee with

the smallest average award to $8,772 for the grantee with the largest average award

1 Item-level response rates for the teacher survey were over 90 percent for each question bank. For the principal 

survey, there was one question bank with an item-level response rate of 78 percent; all others were over 

90 percent. 

2 U.S. Department of Education (2012). Available at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/tif/report.pdf. 

3 Each grantee’s incentive award was compared with a relevant benchmark salary. In most cases, these average 

salaries were collected from the individual grantees. In a few cases, when grantees did not provide average salary 

data, the study used average state-level salaries for elementary and secondary education administrators or 

teachers available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (for 2008).

v 
(between 2 and 24 percent of average teacher salaries). The average administrator

incentive award ranged from $814 to $10,711 (1–13 percent of average salaries). 

• Across all grantees, awards for student achievement gains comprised the largest share

of incentive payouts to teachers and administrators — 64 percent of teacher award

payouts and 63 percent of administrator award payouts were based on student

achievement. Smaller proportions of incentive payouts were based on performance

evaluations (14 percent for teachers and 13 percent for administrators), participation in

supports for improving practice (14 percent for teachers and 12 percent for

administrators), and working in hard-to-staff schools and subjects (6 percent for

teachers and 12 percent for administrators).

• Fewer than half of participating teachers reported that they understood “well” or “very

well” the activities or achievement for which they could earn incentive pay (44 percent)

or how their work was evaluated for the performance pay project (35 percent).

• Teachers were less likely than principals to agree that their performance pay system was

fair (46 percent vs. 64 percent). However, 55 percent of both teachers and principals

agreed that the possible award size was large enough to motivate them to earn it.

It is important to note that program requirements for the 2006 and 2007 cohorts differed from 

those for later cohorts. Based on its experience with the first two cohorts, the U.S. Department 

of Education established different and increasingly specific priorities and requirements for the 

2010 and 2012 TIF grant competitions, including changes to educator eligibility for 

performance-based awards and requirements regarding the use of data, professional 

development, and communications, among others. Because of these new requirements and 

priorities for the 2010 and 2012 cohorts, findings from this study of the 2006 and 2007 cohorts 

may not be generalizable to TIF projects supported under later grant cycles.

vi
Chapter 1. Introduction

The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program is intended to improve student achievement in highneed schools by supporting performance-based compensation systems that provide incentive 

awards to principals and teachers based on gains in student academic achievement, classroom 

evaluations, and other factors, and that provide educators with incentives to take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles (Appendix A). 

This report examines program implementation in the first two cohorts of grantees (2006 and 

2007), based on surveys of teachers and principals conducted in spring 2011 and an analysis of 

incentive award payouts, primarily for the 2010–11 school year.

This chapter provides background information on the Teacher Incentive Fund, including the 

four grant competitions that were conducted between 2006 and 2012 and the two specific 

cohorts that were the subject of this study, as well as a summary of the study design. 

Chapters 2 through 4 present findings on the size and distribution of incentive awards, variation 

in the proportion of incentive awards that were based on student achievement versus other 

factors, and perspectives of participating educators. Appendix B provides additional tables 

containing more detail on the incentive award payout data, and Appendix C provides standard 

error tables for data that are based on the survey data (the payout data include all incentive 

award payouts in the grantees that provided such data, so standard errors are not appropriate).

Background on the Teacher Incentive Fund

The Teacher Incentive Fund, first authorized through appropriations language in 2006 (and 

reauthorized in comparable form in every year since),

4 is intended to improve student 

achievement in high-need schools by supporting performance-based compensation systems 

that provide incentive awards to principals and teachers. The authorizing statute specifies that 

such performance-based compensation systems are to consider gains in student academic 

achievement as well as classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school 

year, among other factors. Further, these systems are to provide educators with incentives to 

take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles. The grantees examined in this study 

made awards to educators based on a number of factors in addition to those listed in the 

legislation, such as performance evaluations (which could include classroom observations, 

reviews of lesson plans, and feedback from peers and students); supports for improving 

practice such as mentoring, coaching, and participating in professional development; and 

incentives for teaching in hard-to-staff schools or subjects.

The U.S. Department of Education awarded $2.6 billion in TIF grants to a total of 131 grantees 

through four competitions, in 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2012. Eligible applicants were local 

4 Appendix A provides the appropriations language that authorized the competitions for the 2006 and 2007 

cohorts. 

1 
education agencies (LEAs), including charter schools that were LEAs in their state; state 

education agencies (SEAs); or partnerships between an LEA and/or SEA and at least one 

nonprofit organization.

The two TIF cohorts examined in this study (2006 and 2007) differed in a number of ways from 

the later two cohorts (2010 and 2012). First, funding for the first two cohorts was much smaller 

than for the later cohorts: $240 million for the 2006 cohort, $237 million for the 2007 cohort, 

$1.2 billion for the 2010 cohort, and $954 million for the 2012 cohort. In addition, program 

requirements were generally less specific for the 2006 and 2007 cohorts than for the later 

cohorts. Based on its experience with those two cohorts, the Department established different 

and increasingly specific priorities and requirements for the 2010 and 2012 TIF grant 

competitions, including: 

1. establishing specific definitions for the “student growth” that needed to be a factor

when determining educator eligibility for performance-based awards;

2. requiring grantees to focus on having eligibility for TIF performance awards flow

from the results of LEA educator evaluation systems;

3. requiring the use of data from those systems to improve teachers’ professional

development and classroom practices and to develop new base salary structures

(beyond the awarding of annual incentives);

4. establishing communications and professional development for educators on

program requirements as a core element for program implementation;

5. allowing uses of funds to include support of performance pay system participation

by school personnel other than principals and teachers (i.e., as part of “human

capital management systems”); and

6. special competitions for grantees that agreed to participate in a randomized

controlled trial sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences5 (Cohort 3) or to

include a focus on science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics or on rural

education (Cohort 4).

Because of these new requirements and priorities for the 2010 and 2012 cohorts, findings from 

this study of the 2006 and 2007 cohorts may not be generalizable to TIF projects supported 

under later grant cycles.6

5 Reports from the IES study are available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_incentive.asp.

6 Additional information on priorities for each of the four grant competitions is available as follows. 

• Cohort 1: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2006/05/01/E6-6531/office-of-elementary-andsecondary-education-overview-information-teacher-incentive-fund-notice.

• Cohort 2: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2006/11/14/E6-19193/office-of-elementary-andsecondary-education-overview-information-teacher-incentive-fund-notice.

2 
The Department received 62 eligible applications for the first TIF competition and 70 eligible 

applications for the second. From these two application pools, the Department awarded grants 

to three state education agencies, 23 local education agencies, and eight nonprofit 

organizations across two cohorts. One grantee withdrew, leaving 33 participating grantees

(Exhibit 1).7 The Department funded each of the grants for a project period of five years, with 

the possibility of a no-cost extension for a sixth year if grantees had unfinished work. The grants 

ranged in size from $1.1 million to $34 million. 

All 33 grantees implemented performance pay systems for principals and other school 

administrators (referred to in this report as principal projects), and 31 of the 33 grantees also 

included teachers in their performance pay systems (referred to as teacher projects). The 

33 grantees involved a total of 1,646 schools, 38,473 teachers, and 2,802 administrators in their 

performance pay systems.8

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia were represented in the 33 grants. Seven grantees 

were from predominantly rural areas, and the rest were large urban school districts, state 

education agencies, or charter school networks. The schools the grantees served also varied, 

from large schools in major metropolitan areas to small schoolhouses in remote villages. Eight 

grantees had more than 70 participating schools, while 14 grantees had 16–70 schools and 

11 grantees had 15 or fewer schools. Although the number of participating educators ranged 

from as few as 35 in a single charter school to more than 6,000 in one district, most grantees 

had fewer than 1,000 participating educators (Exhibit 2). Twenty-three grantees had some 

previous experience with performance pay prior to winning a TIF grant (Exhibit 3).

Use of Locally Developed Strategies or External Models

Grantees used locally developed strategies or derived their plans from the Teacher 

Advancement Program (TAP) or Effective Practice Incentive Community (EPIC) models 

(Exhibit 3). Among the 33 grantees in the first two TIF cohorts, six grantees and two of the four 

districts in a seventh grantee adopted TAP, a model developed by the National Institute for 

Excellence in Teaching.9 The TAP model featured multiple career paths for teachers, ongoing 

professional development embedded in the regular school day, and a performance-based 

• Cohort 3: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/2010.html

• Cohort 4: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/2012.html

7 The grantee that withdrew was a small charter school, Mare Island Technology Academy. During interviews, 

school officials reported that the school lacked the capacity to fully implement its performance pay plan, and the 

leadership was concerned about the school’s ability to meet the financial matching requirements.

8 These counts of administrators and teachers include only eligible individuals who participated in their respective 

performance pay systems. 

9 See http://www.niet.org/tap-system/elements-of-success/. In addition, an eighth grantee (Eagle County) initially 

implemented the TAP model but later discontinued its formal affiliation with the TAP program (although its

program remained largely the same). Because this grantee was not affiliated with TAP while it implemented the TIF 

grant, it is not classified as implementing TAP.

3 
compensation system that provided additional compensation to teachers based on the 

performance of their students; assessments of teachers’ skills, knowledge, and responsibilities; 

and service in additional roles such as master or mentor teacher. 

Four grantees adopted the EPIC design that New Leaders developed and operated from 2007 to 

2012.

10 EPIC identified schools with the highest student achievement gains, made schoolwide 

awards to educators in those schools, and documented and disseminated the practices used at 

the schools via the online EPIC Knowledge System. 

The remaining 22 grantees and two of the four districts in the grantee mentioned above 

developed their own performance pay system. Locally developed systems used some 

combination of results from student achievement measures, supervisors’ evaluation ratings, 

participation in activities to improve practice, and assuming hard-to-staff assignments to 

determine awards.

Study Design

This study examined program implementation in the first two cohorts of grantees (2006 and 

2007), which totaled 33 grantees (one of the original 34 grantees withdrew from the program). 

This report is based on surveys of teachers and principals conducted in spring 2011 and an 

analysis of incentive award payouts, primarily for the 2010–11 school year. The report 

examines three key study questions:

• How did the size and distribution of incentive awards vary across educators and

grantees?

• To what extent were incentive payments based on student achievement versus

other factors such as supports for improving practice, performance evaluations, and

teaching in hard-to-staff schools or subjects?

• How did participating educators perceive the fairness and effectiveness of the

performance pay systems?

In this report, the criteria that grantees used to make incentive awards to educators were 

divided into four types:

• Student achievement.

11

• Performance evaluations, which could include classroom observations, reviews of

lesson plans, and feedback from peers and students.

• Supports for improving practice such as serving as an instructional coach or as a

master or mentor teacher or participating in professional development.

• Incentives for teaching in hard-to-staff schools or subjects.

10 See http://www.newleaders.org/what-we-do/epic/.

11 Grantees used various methods for calculating student achievement, including value-added models (VAM),

growth measures, and status measures.

4 
The study used a variety of data sources to examine the design and implementation of TIFsupported performance pay systems: surveys of a representative sample of teachers and 

principals in schools served by TIF projects; financial data for awards paid to teachers and 

administrators (referred to in this report as payout data); interviews with TIF project directors, 

teachers, principals, and other stakeholders; and reviews of extant documents such as grantee 

applications and annual performance reports. In this report, data are reported on performance

pay compensation for teachers and administrators (principals as well as other administrators 

eligible for performance pay). Data on perceptions of the fairness and effectiveness of the 

performance pay system are reported for teachers and principals, the respondents to the 

surveys.

An earlier report (2012) provided information on early implementation for Cohort 1 and 2 

grantees based on the first round of payout data, interviews, and extant documents. This report 

presents data from the teacher and principal surveys as well as additional rounds of payout 

data. Of the 31 teacher projects, 29 participated in the survey and 30 provided payout data. 

Of the 33 principal projects, 31 participated in the survey and 31 provided payout data.

The surveys were administered in spring 2011 to a representative sample of teachers and 

principals who were eligible to participate in a TIF-funded performance pay project, including 

educators who chose not to participate in the performance pay project. The survey sample 

included 6,639 teachers in 29 teacher projects and 639 principals in 31 principal projects, 

representing the 46,465 eligible teachers and 1,505 eligible principals in these grantees.12

Participants had the option of submitting their surveys either online or through the mail. 

Response rates were 87 percent for the teacher survey and 74 percent for the principal 

survey.13

In addition, grantees were asked to provide data on the performance incentive amounts 

awarded to each individual educator in the 2008–09 and 2010–11 school years. For the second 

round of payout data, three grantees provided data from the 2009–10 school year, their most 

recent data available at the time of data collection. Grantees were asked to provide both the 

amount of total award payouts for each participant as well as the amount each participant 

received for each award component. Payout data were received for 30 of the 31 teacher 

projects and 31 of the 33 principal projects.

12 One grantee was not implementing its project in 2009–10, the year covered in the surveys (Lynwood), and one 

did not grant permission in time to be included in the surveys (Washington, D.C.). In grantees where teacher 

participation was voluntary, some teachers opted out of the performance pay project. In the 29 teacher projects 

covered in the survey, 7,992 of the 46,465 eligible teachers opted out, so there were a total of 38,473 teachers 

participating in those performance pay projects.

13 Item-level response rates for the teacher survey were over 90 percent for each question bank. For the principal 

survey there was one question bank with an item-level response rate of 78 percent; all others were over 

90 percent.

5 
Exhibit 1. Grants awarded to TIF Cohorts 1 and 2

Cohort Grantee Location 5-Year Grant

1 South Carolina Statewide (23 schools, 6 districts) $33,959,740 

1 Chicago Public Schools Chicago, IL $27,336,693 

1 Denver Public Schools Denver, CO $22,674,393 

1 Dallas Independent School District Dallas, TX $22,385,899 

1 National Charter School Consortium National (headquarters in New York, NY) $20,752,420 

1 Philadelphia Charter Schools Philadelphia, PA $20,500,215 

1 Ohio TIF Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, Cleveland $20,223,270 

1 Washington D.C. Public Schools Washington, DC $14,118,543 

1 Memphis City Schools Memphis, TN $13,836,434 

1 Houston Independent School District Houston, TX $11,781,323 

1 Guilford County Schools Guilford County, NC $8,000,005 

1 Northern New Mexico Northern NM $7,647,796 

1 Eagle County School District Eagle County, CO $6,779,204 

1 Consortium of Lake and Peninsula, Kuspuk, and 

Chugach school districts Rural Alaska $5,191,449 

1 Weld County School District Weld County, CO $3,670,133 

2 Amphitheater Unified School District Tucson, AZ $29,211,930 

2 Orange County Florida $27,360,095 

2 University of Texas System Texas $25,588,131 

2 South Dakota South Dakota $20,824,871 

2 National Institute for Excellence in Teaching and 

Consortium of Algiers Charter Schools New Orleans, LA $20,567,721 

2 Miami-Dade County Public Schools Miami-Dade County $18,312,808 

2 Prince George's County Public Schools Prince George's County, MD $17,014,649 

2 Hillsborough County Public Schools Hillsborough County, FL $15,402,538 

2 Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Carolina $11,880,267 

2 Lynwood County Unified School District California $11,842,328 

2 Partnership for Innovation in Compensation for 

Charter Schools New York City $10,089,999 

2 Pittsburgh Public Schools Pennsylvania $7,412,783 

2 South Carolina South Carolina $7,023,345 

2 Cumberland County Schools North Carolina $4,827,198 

2 Harrison School District Two Colorado $3,751,039 

2 School of Excellence in Education San Antonio, TX $3,204,450 

2 Beggs Independent School District Oklahoma $2,068,353 

2 Edward W. Brooke Charter School Roslindale, MA $1,069,252 

Notes: Table includes 15 grantees from Cohort 1 and 18 grantees from Cohort 2. It does not include one Cohort 1 grantee that withdrew from

the program (Mare Island Technology Academy). 

6 
Exhibit 2. Number of participating schools, teachers, and administrators in TIF Cohorts 1 and 2, 

by grantee

Grantee State Schools Teachers Administrators

All grantees 1,646 38,473 2,802

Lake and Peninsula/Kuspuk/Chugach AK 29 109 15

Amphitheater Unified School District AZ 11 461 18

Lynwood County Unified School District CA 16 681 33

Eagle County School District CO 17 461 28

Denver Public Schools-ProComp CO 136 NA 226

Harrison School District Two CO 21 573 NR 

Weld County School District CO 5 142 9 

Hillsborough County Public Schools FL 123 5,452 236

Miami-Dade County Public Schools FL 38 471 124

Orange County Public Schools FL 10 610 32

Chicago Public Schools IL 37 1,077 79

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching and 

Consortium of Algiers Charter Schools LA 9 265 18

Edward W. Brooke Charter School MA 1 35 2 

Prince George’s County Public Schools MD 20 600 114

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools NC 20 1,106 40

Cumberland County Schools NC 5 144 14

Guilford County Schools NC 30 496 27

Northern New Mexico NM 16 NR NR 

Partnership for Innovation in 

Compensation for Charter Schools NY 10 232 28

Ohio TIF OH 168 1,903 122

Beggs Independent School District OK 3 81 3 

Philadelphia Charter Schools PA 11 231 7 

Pittsburgh Public Schools PA 67 NA 68

Florence County School District SC 6 201 11

South Carolina SC 23 716 42

South Dakota SD 47 719 43

Memphis City Schools TN 129 3,739 231

Dallas Independent School District TX 223 6,069 305

Houston Independent School District TX 103 3,741 175

School of Excellence in Education TX 8 140 4 

University of Texas System TX 27 973 45

Washington D.C. Public Schools DC 98 3,088 222

National Charter School Consortium Multiple

states 179 3,957 481

7 
Exhibit 3. Type of performance pay system and previous experience with performance pay in 

TIF Cohorts 1 and 2, by grantee

Grantee Performance Pay System Previous Experience with 

Performance Pay

All grantees Locally developed (23);

TAP (7); EPIC (4)

Yes (23)

No (10)

Lake and Peninsula/Kuspuk/Chugach Locally developed Yes

Amphitheater Unified School District Locally developed Yes

Lynwood County Unified School District Locally developed No

Eagle County School District Locally developed Yes

Denver Public Schools EPIC (principal only) Yes

Harrison School District Two Locally developed No

Weld County School District Locally developed Yes

Hillsborough County Public Schools Locally developed Yes

Miami-Dade County Public Schools Locally developed Yes

Orange County Public Schools Locally developed Yes

Chicago Public Schools TAP No

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching and 

Consortium of Algiers Charter Schools TAP Yes

Edward W. Brooke Charter School Locally developed Yes

Prince George’s County Public Schools Locally developed No

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools Locally developed Yes

Cumberland County Schools Locally developed Yes

Guilford County Schools Locally developed Yes

Northern New Mexico Locally developed No

Partnership for Innovation in Compensation for Charter 

Schools Locally developed No

Ohio TIF Locally developed & TAP Yes

Beggs Independent School District Locally developed No

Philadelphia Charter Schools TAP Yes

Pittsburgh Public Schools Locally developed (principal only) Yes

Florence County School District TAP Yes

South Carolina TAP Yes

South Dakota Locally developed No

Memphis City Schools EPIC Yes

Dallas Independent School District Locally developed Yes

Houston Independent School District Locally developed Yes

School of Excellence in Education Locally developed Yes

University of Texas System TAP Yes

Washington D.C. Public Schools EPIC No

National Charter School Consortium EPIC No

Notes: TAP is the Teacher Advancement Program. EPIC is the Effective Practice Incentive Community. The Ohio Department of Education is 

included in two model categories because it implemented different models across four districts in the state: two districts implemented the TAP 

model, and two used locally developed models. 

8 
Chapter 2. Incentive Award Size and Distribution

Incentive awards provided to teachers tended to be smaller than administrator awards in terms 

of absolute dollars but larger when viewed as a percentage of average base salary. The average 

incentive award across all individual award recipients (for whom payout data were available) 

was $3,651 for teachers and $5,508 for administrators (Exhibit 4). These awards represent 

8 percent of an average teacher salary and 6 percent of an average principal salary (Exhibit 5). 

The average (mean) award sizes were somewhat larger than the median award sizes across 

grantees ($3,616 and $4,525, respectively), because some grantees with large numbers of 

participants provided relatively large individual awards, on average (Exhibits 4 and 6).

The size of awards varied substantially across grantees. The grantee with the smallest average 

award size for teachers provided an average award of $1,170, while the grantee with the 

largest average teacher award size provided $8,772 — a $7,602 difference. Average 

administrator awards ranged from $814 in the grantee with the smallest average award to 

$10,711 in the grantee with the largest average award, a difference of $9,897 (Exhibits 4 and 6). 

Most grantees provided average awards of between $2,000 and $5,999 (24 teacher projects 

and 18 principal projects). Grantees were more likely to provide relatively large awards of more 

than $6,000 to administrators (eight grantees) than to teachers (two grantees). Four teacher 

projects and five principal projects provided relatively small average awards of less than $2,000 

(Exhibit 7).

Across all grantees, 20 percent of teacher award recipients received awards of $6,000 or more, 

while 36 percent received less than $2,000. Similarly, 35 percent of administrator awardees 

received awards of $6,000 or more, while 24 percent received less than $2,000 (Exhibit 8). 

Looking at the size of incentive awards in relation to salary levels, the average teacher award 

ranged from 2.4 percent to 23.5 percent of average base salaries, while the average 

administrator award ranged from 0.9 percent to 13.1 percent of average base salaries. Teacher 

projects were more likely to provide average incentive payments that amounted to 7 percent or 

more of average base salaries (16 teacher projects and 11 principal projects), and principal 

projects were more likely to provide awards amounting to less than 3 percent of average base 

salaries (four teacher projects and five principal projects) (Exhibit 9).

Incentive award amounts also varied within grantees. For teacher projects, the grantee with the 

greatest range in their teacher incentive award amounts gave awards that ranged from $625 to 

$25,000, while the grantee with the smallest range gave awards that ranged from $2,000 to 

$4,000 (Exhibit 10). For principal projects, the grantee with the greatest range in their

administrator incentive award amounts gave awards that ranged from $1,600 to $33,625, while 

the grantee with the smallest range gave awards that ranged from $800 to $1,000 (Exhibit 11). 

Across all award recipients, teacher award amounts ranged from $6 to $25,000, and principal 

award amounts ranged from $13 to $33,625. Looked at in relation to salary levels, the highest 

individual teacher award was 55 percent of average base salary and the highest individual 

principal award was 41 percent of average base salary. 

9 
More than half of the grantees provided performance awards to almost all participating 

educators. Over 90 percent of participating educators received a performance award in 

19 teacher projects and 19 principal projects. More than three-quarters of grantees provided 

performance awards to over half of all participants (23 teacher projects and 24 principal 

projects (Exhibit 12). A few grantees provided awards to a much smaller proportion of 

participants: three grantees provided awards to 5 to 10 percent of participating teachers, and 

four grantees provided awards to 6 to 13 percent of participating administrators (Exhibits 10

and 11). 

Although most grantees provided performance awards to all or most participants, the grantees 

with the largest number of participants were less likely to do so. As a result, 51 percent of all 

teacher participants and 49 percent of all administrator participants received an award across 

the 30 grantees that provided teacher payout data (Exhibits 4 and 5).

Exhibit 4. Average teacher and administrator incentive awards

Average Across All 

Award Recipients

Median Grantee 

Average Award

Lowest Grantee 

Average

Highest Grantee 

Average

Teachers $3,651 $3,355 $1,170 $8,772

Administrators $5,508 $4,512 $814 $10,711

Notes: This exhibit is based on payout data submitted by 30 of the 31 grantees that included teachers in their TIF project and 31 of the 

33 grantees that included administrators in their TIF project. The lowest grantee average represents the smallest average award paid to 

teachers and administrators by a grantee, and the highest grantee average represents the largest.

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10.

Exhibit 5. Average award sizes as a percentage of average base salaries for teacher and administrators 

Average Across All 

Award Recipients

Median Grantee 

Average Award

Lowest Grantee 

Average

Highest Grantee 

Average

Teachers 7.7% 6.6% 2.4% 23.5%

Administrators 5.5% 4.9% 0.9% 13.1%

Notes: This exhibit is based on payout data submitted by 30 of the 31 grantees that included teachers in their TIF project and 31 of the 

33 grantees that included administrators in their TIF project.

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10.

10
Exhibit 6. Average incentive awards for teachers and administrators, across all award recipients within 

each grantee

Grantee Average Teacher Award % of Average Salary Grantee Average Administrator Award % of Average Salary

1 $1,170 2.4% 1 $814 0.9%

2 $1,182 2.8% 2 $886 0.9%

3 $1,372 2.6% 3 $996 1.3%

4 $1,721 3.1% 4 $1,547 1.8%

5 $2,142 6.2% 5 $1,893 2.7%

6 $2,218 4.8% 6 $2,143 3.1%

7 $2,512 5.9% 7 $2,291 3.0%

8 $2,591 6.9% 8 $2,567 3.8%

9 $2,596 5.5% 9 $2,750 2.5%

10 $2,681 5.2% 10 $2,795 2.3%

11 $2,941 7.6% 11 $3,007 3.3%

12 $2,984 6.3% 12 $3,106 3.8%

13 $3,004 6.7% 13 $3,200 4.6%

14 $3,152 6.6% 14 $3,331 3.1%

15 $3,324 5.1% 15 $4,471 4.9%

16 $3,387 6.0% 16 $4,512 5.3%

17 $3,394 6.0% 17 $4,524 5.8%

18 $3,747 7.9% 18 $4,734 8.8%

19 $3,973 7.3% 19 $4,896 6.5%

20 $4,004 5.4% 20 $5,108 4.9%

21 $4,193 13.9% 21 $5,714 5.6%

22 $4,383 9.7% 22 $5,872 9.1%

23 $4,523 10.3% 23 $5,885 5.6%

24 $4,636 9.1% 24 $6,232 6.7%

25 $4,770 6.9% 25 $6,278 8.0%

26 $5,001 11.0% 26 $6,389 7.7%

27 $5,417 9.3% 27 $7,375 9.0%

28 $5,423 13.4% 28 $8,000 8.2%

29 $7,258 14.9% 29 $8,886 12.0%

30 $8,772 23.5% 30 $9,357 10.7%

― ― ― 31 $10,711 13.1%

Notes: Grantees are not listed by name to protect confidentiality. Grantee identification numbers in teacher columns do not correspond with 

grantee identification numbers in administrator columns. ― indicates not applicable. 

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10. 

11
Exhibit 7. Number of grantees providing average teacher and administrator incentive awards of 

various size levels

 

Notes: This exhibit is based on payout data submitted by 30 of the 31 grantees that included teachers in their TIF project and 31 of the 

33 grantees that included administrators in their TIF project.

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10.

Exhibit 8. Percentage of teachers and administrators earning incentive awards of various size levels

 

Notes: This exhibit is based on payout data submitted by 30 of the 31 grantees that included teachers in their TIF project and 31 of the 

33 grantees that included administrators in their TIF project.

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10.

12
Exhibit 9. Number of grantees providing average teacher and administrator incentive awards of 

various size levels (as a percentage of average base salary) 

4

10

12

4

11

9 9

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0–3% 4–6% 7–11% 12–24%

Teachers Administrators

Notes: This exhibit is based on payout data submitted by 30 of the 31 grantees that included teachers in their TIF project and 31 of the 

33 grantees that included administrators in their TIF project.

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10.

13
Exhibit 10. Range of teacher award amounts, by award rate

Grantee Award Rate Minimum Award Maximum Award

Difference Between 

Minimum and 

Maximum Award

1 100% $105 $19,556 $19,451

2 100% $1,300 $18,850 $17,550

3 100% $105 $16,008 $15,903

4 100% $330 $16,000 $15,670

5 100% $151 $15,221 $15,070

6 100% $75 $13,350 $13,275

7 100% $315 $13,000 $12,685

8 100% $200 $11,330 $11,130

9 100% $683 $11,530 $10,847

10 100% $500 $9,250 $8,750

11 100% $100 $6,650 $6,550

12 100% $513 $5,985 $5,472

13 99% $100 $7,650 $7,550

14 98% $625 $25,000 $24,375

15 98% $1,000 $4,000 $3,000

16 97% $375 $13,438 $13,063

17 97% $2,750 $9,896 $7,146

18 95% $100 $21,452 $21,352

19 94% $37 $20,789 $20,752

20 85% $27 $3,270 $3,243

21 72% $500 $10,000 $9,500

22 72% $230 $8,000 $7,770

23 57% $1,000 $7,200 $6,200

24 49% $120 $22,700 $22,580

25 40% $70 $12,961 $12,891

26 40% $6 $12,614 $12,608

27 34% $500 $6,000 $5,500

28 10% $600 $8,000 $7,400

29 9% $2,500 $5,000 $2,500

30 5% $2,000 $4,000 $2,000

All teacher 

participants 51% $6 $25,000 $24,094

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10 (the most recent year of payout data available at 

the time of data collection).

14
Exhibit 11. Range of administrator award amounts, by award rate

Grantee Award Rate Minimum Award Maximum Award

Difference Between 

Minimum and 

Maximum Award

1 100% $1,600 $33,625 $32,025

2 100% $571 $20,104 $19,532

3 100% $120 $15,290 $15,170

4 100% $1,000 $15,000 $14,000

5 100% $2,500 $10,750 $8,250

6 100% $1,575 $8,589 $7,014

7 100% $2,850 $7,410 $4,560

8 100% $1,000 $5,000 $4,000

9 100% $1,125 $4,550 $3,425

10 100% $4,000 $7,000 $3,000

11 100% $6,892 $9,800 $2,908

12 100% $3,587 $6,450 $2,863

13 100% $405 $3,145 $2,740

14 100% $2,150 $3,400 $1,250

15 99% $1,630 $13,270 $11,640

16 99% $300 $5,000 $4,700

17 96% $575 $12,000 $11,425

18 91% $500 $4,000 $3,500

19 83% $1,700 $5,200 $3,500

20 78% $500 $2,020 $1,520

21 73% $500 $5,575 $5,075

22 61% $1,200 $7,500 $6,300

23 53% $2,000 $5,000 $3,000

24 45% $217 $20,000 $19,783

25 33% $350 $1,400 $1,050

26 27% $13 $9,381 $9,368

27 13% $875 $12,000 $10,125

28 8% $5,000 $10,000 $5,000

29 6% $1,662 $5,000 $3,338

30 6% $800 $1,000 $200

All admin. 

participants 49% $13 $33,625 $33,612

Notes: One grantee is not included in this table because it had only one principal, so the award amount is not disclosed for confidentiality 

reasons. The grantee numbers in this exhibit do not correspond to those in Exhibit 4.

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10 (the most recent year of payout data available at 

the time of data collection).

15
Exhibit 12. Number of grantees by percentage of teacher and administrator participants that received 

incentive awards

3 4 4

19

4 3

5

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1–25% 26–50% 51–90% 91–100%

Teachers Administrators

Notes: This exhibit is based on payout data submitted by 30 of the 31 grantees that included teachers in their TIF project and 31 of the 

33 grantees that included administrators in their TIF project.

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or, for three grantees, from 2009–10.

16
Chapter 3. Composition of Incentive Awards

Participating educators could earn awards based on student achievement, participation in 

activities to improve their practice or providing supports to improve others’ practice, (such as 

coaching or mentoring), performance evaluations, or assuming hard-to-staff positions. Of the 

31 teacher projects, 30 rewarded teachers at least in part for improved student achievement. 

All 33 principal projects used student achievement as a performance measure (Exhibit 13). 

The TIF legislation specified that grantees were to provide incentive awards to principals and 

teachers based on gains in student academic achievement, and grantees generally did so, 

although they sometimes incorporated measures of achievement levels in addition to valueadded or growth measures. Among the 30 grantees that provided awards to teachers based on 

student achievement, 18 used value-added measures, 15 used growth measures, and nine used 

achievement levels; some grantees used more than one type of measure, but none used only 

achievement levels for making awards. 

Similarly, among the 33 grantees that provided awards to administrators, 16 used value-added 

measures, 18 used growth measures, and nine used achievement levels; one grantee used 

achievement levels only, while eight used achievement levels in combination with value-added 

and/or growth measures.

About two-thirds (64 percent) of average teacher award payouts were for student 

achievement. Performance evaluations and participation in supports for improving practice 

accounted for the next largest shares of average award amounts (14 percent each), with 

incentives for teaching in hard-to-staff schools and subjects making up 6 percent of the average 

award (Exhibit 14). 

A similar pattern emerged among principal projects. Sixty-three percent of average 

administrator award payouts were for student achievement, while performance evaluations 

made up the next largest percentage (13 percent). Incentives for participation in supports for 

improving practice or mentoring and for working in hard-to-staff schools each made up 

12 percent of the average award payout (Exhibit 14). 

Funds awarded on the basis of student achievement accounted for the majority of the incentive 

payouts in 13 teacher projects and 18 principal projects. All but one teacher project provided 

incentive payments for student achievement, although the proportion of incentives awarded 

for student achievement ran the gamut, with nine teacher projects awarding more than threequarters of their teacher incentive dollars for student achievement, including four grantees that 

paid teachers entirely based on student achievement, and six grantees that awarded less than a 

quarter of their incentives for student achievement (Exhibit 15). 

All principal projects provided incentives for student achievement. Similar to the pattern 

observed for teacher incentive payouts, about one-third of the principal projects awarded more 

17
than three-quarters of their incentive dollars for student achievement (10 out of 31). Two of 

the principal projects of 31 awarded 25 percent or less of incentive dollars toward that 

component. Eight grantees used student achievement as the sole criterion for making incentive 

awards. 

Relatively few TIF grantees included incentives for hard-to-staff schools or subjects in their 

award payout calculations (seven teacher projects and three principal projects). However, two 

of these projects awarded a large proportion of total incentive dollars bases on this criterion: 

One teacher project awarded 84 percent of teacher award dollars for teaching in hard-to-staff 

schools or subjects, and one principal project awarded 71 percent of administrator incentive 

dollars for working in hard-to-staff schools (Exhibit 15).

Exhibit 13. Number of grantees including various components in teacher and administrator incentive 

awards

30

16

22

7

33

17

14

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Student Achievement Performance

Evaluation

Supports for Improving

Practice

Incentives for

Teaching in a Hard-toStaff School or

Award Components Subject

Teacher Awards Administrator Awards

Notes: This exhibit presents data for the 31 grantees that included teachers in their TIF project and the 33 grantees that included administrators 

in their TIF project.

Source: Project documents, interviews with grantees, and grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or 2009–10.

18
Exhibit 14. Percentage of all incentive payout dollars awarded for various components

 

Notes: This exhibit presents data for the 30 grantees that provided awards to teachers (teacher projects) and that provided teacher payout data 

and for the 31 grantees that provided administrator payout data.

Source: Project documents, interviews with grantees, and grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or 2009–10.

Exhibit 15. Number of grantees awarding various percentages of their incentive dollars for each 

component

Percentage 

of Grantee’s 

Incentive Dollars

Student

Achievement

Performance 

Evaluation

Supports for 

Improving Practice

Hard-to-Staff 

Schools or Subjects

Teachers Admins Teachers Admins Teachers Admins Teachers Admins

76–100% 9 10 0 0 1 0 1 0 

51–75% 4 8 0 3 4 6 0 1 

26–50% 10 11 10 6 12 4 0 1 

1–25% 6 2 5 4 2 3 6 1 

0% 1 0 15 18 11 18 23 28

Total number 

of grantees 30 31 30 31 30 31 30 31

Source: Project documents, interviews with grantees, and grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 or 2009–10.

19
20
Chapter 4. Perspectives of Participating Educators

The study conducted surveys of principals and teachers participating in the projects in spring 

2011 to obtain their perspectives on their performance pay projects. The survey administration 

took place in either Year 5 of the grant (for Cohort 1 grantees) or Year 4 of the grant (for 

Cohort 2 grantees), after the grantees had had some time to implement their performance pay 

systems and for participating educators to become familiar with the systems. The surveys asked 

educators about a range of topics including communication, fairness, job stress and satisfaction, 

and the perceived effects of the performance pay system on teacher practices.

Communication, Understanding, and Motivation

Fewer than half (44 percent) of teachers surveyed in 2011 agreed that their performance pay 

project was clearly communicated to educators (35 percent responded that they agreed with 

this statement and 9 percent said they strongly agreed). Principals were more likely than 

teachers to report that the programs were clearly communicated (67 percent, including 

19 percent who strongly agreed with this statement) (Exhibit 16). 

Teachers and principals from small- and medium-sized grantees were more likely to agree that 

their performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators than were teachers and 

principals from large grantees. For example, in grantees with small numbers of schools (15 or 

fewer schools), 72 percent of teachers and 86 percent of principals agreed that the 

performance pay project was clearly communicated, compared with 41 percent of teachers and 

64 percent of principals in large grantees (those with more than 71 schools) (Exhibit 17). 

Teachers and administrators also had contrasting perceptions of how well they understood 

various aspects of their performance pay system. Fewer than half of teachers ― but more than 

half of principals ― reported that they understood “well” or “very well” the goals of their 

performance pay project (47 percent of teachers vs. 67 percent of principals), the activities or 

achievement for which they could earn incentive pay (44 percent vs. 64 percent), or how their 

work was evaluated for the performance pay project (35 percent vs. 55 percent). Both teachers 

and principals were less likely to report understanding well or very well how incentive awards 

were calculated (21 percent and 44 percent, respectively) (Exhibits 18 and 19). 

Teachers and principals also reported on the extent to which they received various types of 

support that were intended to help them earn an incentive award. The most common type of 

support reported was professional development (62 percent of teachers and principals), 

followed by observation, evaluation, or feedback (48 percent of teachers and 55 percent of 

principals) and mentoring (33 percent of teachers and 37 percent of principals) (Exhibit 20).

Educators’ perceptions of the motivational effect of the size of the award they could earn were 

slightly positive. Fifty-five percent of both participating teachers and principals agreed or 

strongly agreed that the size of the possible performance pay award was large enough to 

motivate them to earn it (Exhibit 21).

21
Fairness

Teachers’ perceptions of the fairness of their performance pay project were less positive than 

principals’ perceptions. Forty-six percent of participating teachers agreed or strongly agreed 

that the performance pay system was fair, while 64 percent of principals agreed or strongly 

agreed that the performance pay system was fair. However, both teachers (79 percent) and 

principals (82 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the formal evaluation they received was 

fair. In contrast, 29 percent of teachers and 52 percent of principals agreed or strongly agreed 

that the performance pay project did a good job of distinguishing effective from ineffective 

teachers (Exhibit 22).

Perceptions of fairness varied by award rate. In grantees with 100 percent award rates, 

42 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the performance pay system was fair. By 

comparison, 62 percent of teachers in grantees with award rates from 72 to 99 percent and 

44 percent of teachers in grantees with award rates from 9 to 61 percent agreed or strongly 

agreed that the performance pay system was fair (Exhibit 23).14

Perceptions of a program’s ability to distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers also 

varied by award rate. Twenty-nine percent of teachers in grantees with a 100 percent award

rate agreed or strongly agreed that the program did a good job of distinguishing effective from 

ineffective teachers.

15 Forty-two percent of teachers in grantees with award rates from 72 to 

99 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the performance pay system did a good job of 

distinguishing effective from ineffective teachers. Twenty-seven percent of teachers in grantees 

with award rates from 9 to 61 percent agreed or strongly agreed with this statement

(Exhibit 23).

Stress and Satisfaction

A minority of teachers reported that they agreed with statements suggesting that performance 

pay had an effect on their job stress or job satisfaction. Forty-four percent of teachers agreed 

that they felt increased pressure to perform under performance pay, including 13 percent who 

strongly agreed with this statement. A smaller percentage (32 percent) agreed that 

performance pay increased the stress and disappointment involved in teaching (including 

9 percent who strongly agreed). Conversely, 58 percent agreed that their job satisfaction had 

increased because of performance pay (including 4 percent who strongly agreed) (Exhibit 24).

14 This categorization of grantees by teacher award rates (100 percent, 72–99 percent, and 9–61 percent) includes 

all 30 grantees that provided payout data. No grantees had award rates lower than 9 percent or between 

61 percent and 72 percent.

15 The size of the awards often varied within grantees. For example, in one grantees with a 100 percent award rate 

for teachers, individual award sizes ranged from $105 to $19,556 (Exhibit 4). Grantees with lower award rates also 

often showed wide variation in award sizes.

22
Perceptions of TIF Contributions

One of the goals of the TIF program was to increase the number of effective teachers in hardto-staff schools and subjects. A minority of teachers reported that they agreed or strongly 

agreed that performance pay helped attract (33 percent) or retain (40 percent) effective 

teachers. Principals were more positive about performance pay’s contribution to retaining 

effective teachers (54 percent agreed or strongly agreed), but only 35 percent agreed or 

strongly agreed that the TIF program contributed to attracting effective teachers (Exhibit 25).

Principals and teachers reported different perceptions of the TIF program’s effect on getting 

teachers to work harder or alter their instructional practices. Fifty-two percent of teachers and 

71 percent of principals reported that the performance pay project encouraged teachers to 

work harder to earn more pay. Sixty-seven percent of principals and 39 percent of participating 

teachers agreed or strongly agreed that teachers altered their instructional practice as a result 

of the performance pay project (Exhibit 26).

Exhibit 16. Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement that the 

performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators

21%

5%

35%

27%

35%

48%

9%

19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Teachers Principals

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Notes: The unweighted n’s were 5,710 for teachers and 444 for principals. Exhibit C-2 provides standard errors. Response categories may not 

sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Teacher and principal surveys, 2011. 

23
Exhibit 17. Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement that the 

performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators, by grantee size

7%

15% 20%

3% 2% 6%

21%

28%

39%

11%

21%

30%

49%

46%

33%

49%

56%

48%

23%

12% 8%

37%

21% 16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Teachers Principals

Notes: Grantee size was defined by the number of participating schools: small, 15 schools or fewer; medium, 16–71 schools; large, more than 

71 schools. The unweighted teachers n’s were 1,697 teachers in 11 grantees in the small grantee group, 2,472 teachers in 12 grantees in the 

medium grantee group, and 1,266 in five grantees in the large grantee group. The unweighted principal n’s were 67 principals in 11 grantees in 

the small grantee group, 176 principals in 13 grantees in the medium grantee group, and 183 prinicipals in six grantees in the large grantee 

group. One grantee was not categorized because it consisted of four subgrantees that varied in size. Exhibit C-3 provides standard errors.

Response categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source: Teacher and principal surveys, 2011. 

24
Exhibit 18. Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of understanding of certain aspects 

of their performance pay project

16% 19% 27%

43%

36% 37%

38%

36%

30% 28%

23%

14%

17% 16% 12% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Goals of the

program

Activities or

achievements for

which you can

earn incentive pay

How your work as

a teacher is

evaluated for the

program

How incentive

amounts are

calculated

Very Well

Well

Somewhat

Not At All

Notes: Unweighted teacher n’s ranged from 5,726 to 5,740. Exhibit C-4 provides standard errors and n sizes. Response categories may not sum 

to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Teacher survey, 2011.

25
Exhibit 19. Percentage of principals who reported various degrees of understanding of certain aspects 

of their performance pay project

15% 16% 22% 25%

17% 21%

23%

31%

33% 31%

30%

22%

34% 33% 25% 22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Goals of the

program

Activities or

achievements for

which you can earn

incentive pay

How your work as

a principal is

evaluated for the

program

How incentive

amounts are

calculated

Very Well

Well

Somewhat

Not At All

Notes: Unweighted principal n’s ranged from 467 to 468. Exhibit C-5 provides standard errors and n sizes. Response categories may not sum to 

100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Principal survey, 2011.

26
Exhibit 20. Percentage of educators who reported receiving various types of support to help them 

earn an incentive award

62%

48%

33%

62%

55%

37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Professional Development Observation, Evaluation, or

Feedback

Mentoring

Teachers Principals

Notes: Unweighted teacher n’s ranged from 5,604 to 5,647. Unweighted principal n’s ranged from 445 to 450. Exhibit C-6 provides standard 

errors and n sizes. Response categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Teacher and principal surveys, 2011. 

27
Exhibit 21. Percentage of educators who reported various degrees of agreement about whether the 

size of the possible award was large enough to motivate them to earn it

12% 12%

33% 33%

44% 40%

11% 15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Teachers Principals

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

28

Notes: Unweighted teacher n was 4,040. Unweighted principal n was 442. Exhibit C-7 provides standard errors and n sizes. Response categories 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Teacher and principal surveys, 2011
Exhibit 22. Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement about 

the fairness of certain aspects of their performance pay project

17%

7% 6% 5%

24%

7%

38%

30%

15% 14%

47%

42%

41%

54%

61% 64%

25%

42%

5% 10% 18%

44%

4% 11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Teachers Principals Teachers Principals Teachers Principals

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

The performance 

pay program is fair

The performance pay program 

does a good job of distinguishing 

effective from ineffective teachers

The formal evaluation

I received was fair

Notes: Unweighted teacher n’s ranged from 3,905 to 5,624. Unweighted principal n’s ranged from 390 to 438. Exhibit C-8 provides standard 

errors and n sizes. Response categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Teacher and principal surveys, 2011.

29
Exhibit 23. Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of agreement with certain 

statements about the performance pay system’s fairness and effectiveness, by award rate

21%

9%

16%

25%

12%

25%

37%

29%

40%

46%

46%

48%

36%

52%

40%

24%

36%

24%

6% 10%

4% 5% 3% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

100%

award rate

72-99%

award rate

9-61%

award rate

100%

award rate

72-99%

award rate

9-61%

award rate

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

The performance pay 

program is fair

The performance pay program 

does a good job of distinguishing 

effective from ineffective teachers

Notes: The exhibit presents data for 28 of 29 grantees that participated in the surveys; one grantee did not submit payout data. Unweighted 

teacher n’s ranged from 1,602 to 2,034 for the 100 percent category, 1,319 to 1,907 for the 72–99 percent category, and 805 to 1,472 for the 

9–61 percent category. The question about fairness was asked only of teachers who had participated in a performance pay project for at least 

two years, whereas the question about distinguishing effectiveness was asked of all eligible teacher respondents. Exhibit C-9 provides standard 

errors and n sizes. Response categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Project documents, interviews with grantees, teacher survey, 2011. 

30
Exhibit 24. Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of agreement with statements about 

their job satisfaction

22% 15% 13%

19%

52%

43%

54%

23%

31%

4% 9% 13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

My job satisfaction has

increased due to

performance pay

The stress and

disappointments involved

in teaching at this school

are greater due to

performance pay

I feel increased pressure

to perform due to

performance pay

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Notes: Unweighted teacher n’s ranged from 5,579 to 5,589. Exhibit C-10 provides standard errors and n sizes. Response categories may not sum 

to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Teacher survey, 2011.

31
Exhibit 25. Percentage of educators who reported various degrees of agreement with statements 

about the effects of performance pay on attracting and retaining effective teachers

19% 14% 18%

10%

49%

52% 42%

36%

29% 29% 35%

44%

4% 6% 5% 10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TEACHERS:

Our performance

pay program

helps schools

attract effective

teachers

PRINCIPALS:

The performance

pay program

helped me recruit

effective teachers

at my school.

TEACHERS:

Our performance

pay program

helps schools

retain effective

teachers.

PRINCIPALS:

The performance

pay program has

encouraged

effective teachers

to remain at my

school.

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Recruitment Retention

Notes: Unweighted teacher n’s ranged from 5,615 to 5,628. Unweighted principal n’s were 390. Exhibit C-11 provides standard errors and n

sizes. Response categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Teacher and principal surveys, 2011.

32
Exhibit 26. Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement with 

statements about whether teachers worked harder or altered their instructional practices due to 

performance pay

15%

4%

13%

4%

33%

25%

48%

29%

41%

52%

33%

55%

11%

19%

6%

12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TEACHERS:

The performance pay

program encourages

teachers to work

harder than in prior

years to get more pay.

PRINCIPALS:

The performance pay

program encourages

teachers to work

harder than in prior

years to get more pay.

TEACHERS:

I have altered my

instructional practices

as a result of the

performance pay

program.

PRINCIPALS:

Teachers have altered

their instructional

practices as a result of

the performance pay

program.

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Teachers worked harder Teachers altered instructional practices

Notes: Unweighted teacher n’s ranged from 3,929 to 5,677. Unweighted principal n’s ranged from 390 to 392. Exhibit C-12 provides standard 

errors and n sizes. The question about teacher instructional practice was asked only of teachers who had participated in a performance pay 

project for at least two years, not of all respondents. Response categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Teacher and principal surveys, 2011.

33
34
Summary and Conclusions

The first two cohorts served through the TIF program included a total of 33 grantees that 

received five-year grants, beginning in 2006 and 2007, to support the development and 

implementation of performance-based compensation systems for teachers and principals in 

high-need schools. These grantees included small rural school districts, large urban districts, 

state education agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Although the number of participating 

educators ranged from as few as 35 in a single charter school to more than 6,000 in one district, 

most grantees had fewer than 1,000 participating educators. 

Nearly all grantees provided educators with incentive awards that were based on a

combination of the performance of their students on tests, evaluation results (which could 

include classroom observations, reviews of lesson plans, and feedback from peers and 

students), participation in activities for improving practice, or filling hard-to-staff assignments. 

Almost all eligible educators participated in their performance pay projects, and in over half of 

the grantees nearly every participating educator received a performance award. 

On average, the incentive payments received by teachers and administrators provided a 

7–8 percent boost to their salaries. However, the size of awards varied substantially across 

grantees, with some grantees providing average incentive payments that amounted to 

1–2 percent of salaries and others providing average awards of as much as 13–24 percent of 

salaries. Some individual educators received even higher payments (up to 55 percent of 

average salaries for teachers and up to 41 percent of average salaries for administrators). The 

wide range in incentive amounts suggests potentially wide variation in the degree of incentive 

that participating educators may perceive. Across all grantees, over half of both teachers and 

administrators agreed that the possible award size was large enough to motivate them to earn 

it.

While grantees used a variety of strategies to communicate with their educators about the 

performance pay system, teachers often reported low levels of understanding. Less than half 

said they thought their performance pay system was fair (46 percent), and fewer agreed that 

the system did a good job of distinguishing effective from ineffective teachers (29 percent). 

Principals generally had more positive views than teachers. However, most teachers and 

principals thought that the formal evaluation they themselves had received was fair (79 percent 

and 82 percent, respectively).

Principals and teachers reported different perceptions of the TIF program’s effect on getting 

teachers to work harder or change their instructional practices. For example, 67 percent of 

principals believed that teachers had altered their instructional practice as a result of the 

performance pay project, compared with 39 percent of teachers. About a third of teachers 

reported that performance pay had increased the stress and disappointments involved in 

teaching, but 58 percent agreed that their job satisfaction had increased because of 

performance pay. A sizable minority of teachers reported that they agreed that performance 

pay helped attract (33 percent) and retain (40 percent) effective teachers.

35
As discussed previously, program requirements were generally less specific for the two TIF 

cohorts examined in this study than for the 2010 and 2012 cohorts, and program funding was 

significantly lower for the first two cohorts. Consequently, the findings from this study may not 

be generalizable to performance pay projects supported under later grant cycles. Rather, this 

report provides a snapshot of how grantees in early cohorts of the TIF program implemented 

performance pay systems and how teachers and principals perceived the fairness and effects of 

those systems.

36
Appendix A. Authorizing Legislation

For the 2006 and 2007 competitions, the Teacher Incentive Fund was authorized in the 

Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2006 (Title V of P.L. 109-149). The provisions 

authorizing the program read as follows:

• Provided further, That $260,111,000 shall be available to carry out part D of title V of the

ESEA, of which $100,000,000 of the funds for subpart 1 shall be for competitive grants to

local educational agencies, including charter schools that are local educational agencies, or

States, or partnerships of: (1) a local educational agency, a State, or both; and (2) at least

one non-profit organization to develop and implement performance-based teacher and

principal compensation systems in high-need schools:

• Provided further, That such performance-based compensation systems must consider

gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations conducted

multiple times during each school year among other factors and provide educators with

incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles:

• Provided further, That five percent of such funds for competitive grants shall become

available on October 1, 2005 for technical assistance, training, peer review of applications,

program outreach, and evaluation activities and that 95 percent shall become available on

July 1, 2006 and remain available through September 30, 2007 for competitive grants.

37
38
Appendix B. Payout Data

The payout data presented in this appendix include all available performance payments in 

schools included in TIF-funded projects; in some grantees, these amounts included matching 

funds (non-TIF funds). In all but three grantees, data were from the 2010–11 school year. The 

other two grantees provided 2009–10 school year data because they had not made payouts for 

the 2010–11 school year at the time of data collection. One grantee did not submit any payout 

data, and one grantee did not make award payouts to administrators in 2010–11, so they are 

not included in the administrator payout data. Grantee identification numbers used for the 

teacher payout awards exhibit do not correspond with numbers used in the administrator 

payout exhibit.

39
40
Exhibit B-1. Payout awards for teachers: averages across award recipients and across all participants, 

minimum award, maximum award, and award rate

Grantee

Average Award 

(award recipients)

Average Award 

(all participants)

Minimum Payout 

(not including $0’s) Maximum Payout % of 

Participants 

Receiving 

Dollars Awards

% of Avg. 

Salary Dollars

% of Avg. 

Salary Dollars

% of Avg. 

Salary Dollars

% of Avg. 

Salary

1 $1,170 2.4% $6,650 13.4% $100 0.2% $6,650 13.4% 100.0%

2 $1,182 2.8% $3,270 7.7% $27 0.1% $3,270 7.7% 84.5%

3 $1,372 2.6% $12,961 24.1% $70 0.1% $12,961 24.1% 39.8%

4 $1,721 3.1% $6,000 10.6% $500 0.9% $6,000 10.6% 33.8%

5 $2,142 6.2% $9,250 26.7% $700 2.0% $9,250 26.7% 100.0%

6 $2,218 4.8% $16,008 34.4% $105 0.2% $16,008 34.4% 100.0%

7 $2,512 5.9% $7,200 16.9% $1,000 2.4% $7,200 16.9% 56.9%

8 $2,591 6.9% $10,000 26.5% $500 1.3% $10,000 26.5% 72.2%

9 $2,596 5.5% $13,350 28.2% $75 0.2% $13,350 28.2% 100.0%

10 $2,681 5.2% $5,000 9.7% $2,500 4.8% $5,000 9.7% 8.9%

11 $2,941 7.6% $5,985 15.5% $513 1.3% $5,985 15.5% 100.0%

12 $2,984 6.3% $13,438 28.3% $375 0.8% $13,438 28.3% 96.6%

13 $3,004 6.7% $13,000 29.0% $315 0.7% $13,000 29.0% 100.0%

14 $3,152 6.6% $11,330 23.6% $200 0.4% $11,330 23.6% 99.9%

15 $3,324 5.1% $11,530 17.7% $683 1.0% $11,530 17.7% 100.0%

16 $3,387 6.0% $8,000 14.2% $600 1.1% $8,000 14.2% 10.1%

17 $3,394 6.0% $7,650 13.5% $100 0.2% $7,650 13.5% 99.0%

18 $3,747 7.9% $4,000 8.4% $1,000 2.1% $4,000 8.4% 98.0%

19 $3,973 7.3% $4,000 7.4% $2,000 3.7% $4,000 7.4% 5.0%

20 $4,004 5.4% $21,452 28.8% $100 0.1% $21,452 28.8% 95.2%

21 $4,193 13.9% $19,556 64.6% $105 0.3% $19,556 64.6% 100.0%

22 $4,383 9.7% $12,614 27.9% $6 0.0% $12,614 27.9% 40.0%

23 $4,523 10.3% $16,000 36.5% $330 0.8% $16,000 36.5% 100.0%

24 $4,636 9.1% $22,700 44.5% $120 0.2% $22,700 44.5% 49.5%

25 $4,770 6.9% $15,221 22.1% $151 0.2% $15,221 22.1% 100.0%

26 $5,001 11.0% $25,000 55.0% $625 1.4% $25,000 55.0% 98.2%

27 $5,417 9.3% $20,789 35.6% $37 0.1% $20,789 35.6% 94.5%

28 $5,423 13.4% $8,000 19.8% $230 0.6% $8,000 19.8% 71.6%

29 $7,258 14.9% $18,850 38.6% $1,300 2.7% $18,850 38.6% 100.0%

30 $8,772 23.5% $9,896 26.5% $2,750 7.4% $9,896 26.5% 97.2%

Average $3,616 7.7% $11,957 25.2% $571 1.2% $11,957 25.2% ―

Median $3,355 6.6% $11,430 25.3% $322 0.7% $11,430 25.3% ―

Minimum $1,170 2.4% $3,270 7.4% $6 0.0% $3,270 7.4% ―

Maximum $8,772 23.5% $25,000 64.6% $2,750 7.4% $25,000 64.6% ―

Notes: Grantee identification numbers in administrator tables do not correspond with grantee identification numbers in teacher tables in this 

appendix. ― indicates not applicable

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 school year. 

41
Exhibit B-2. Payout awards for administrators: averages across award recipients and across all 

participants, minimum award, maximum award, and award rate

Grantee

Average Award 

(award recipients)

Average Award 

(all participants)

Minimum Payout 

(not including $0’s) Maximum Payout % of 

Participants 

Receiving 

Dollars Awards

% of Avg. 

Salary Dollars

% of Avg. 

Salary Dollars

% of Avg. 

Salary Dollars

% of Avg. 

Salary

1 $814 0.9% $267 0.3% $350 0.4% $1,400 1.5% 32.8%

2 $886 0.9% $50 0.1% $800 0.8% $1,000 1.0% 5.6%

3 $996 1.3% $774 1.0% $500 0.6% $2,020 2.6% 77.8%

4 $1,547 1.8% $1,547 1.8% $405 0.5% $3,145 3.7% 100.0%

5 $1,893 2.7% $1,724 2.4% $500 0.7% $4,000 5.7% 91.1%

6 $2,143 3.1% $2,143 3.1% $1,000 1.5% $5,000 7.3% 100.0%

7 $2,291 3.0% $2,291 3.0% $1,125 1.5% $4,550 5.9% 100.0%

8 $2,567 3.8% $2,567 3.8% $2,150 3.2% $3,400 5.1% 100.0%

9 $2,750 2.5% $1,667 1.5% $1,200 1.1% $7,500 6.9% 60.6%

10 $2,795 2.3% $2,760 2.3% $300 0.2% $5,000 4.1% 98.7%

11 $3,007 3.3% $2,205 2.4% $500 0.5% $5,575 6.1% 73.3%

12 $3,106 3.8% $829 1.0% $13 0.0% $9,381 11.6% 26.7%

13 $3,200 4.6% $2,640 3.8% $1,700 2.5% $5,200 7.5% 82.5%

14 $3,331 3.1% $3,214 3.0% $575 0.5% $12,000 11.3% 96.5%

15 $4,471 4.9% $2,375 2.6% $2,000 2.2% $5,000 5.5% 53.1%

16 $4,512 5.3% $285 0.3% $1,662 1.9% $5,000 5.8% 6.3%

17 $4,524 5.8% $4,524 5.8% $571 0.7% $20,104 26.0% 100.0%

18 $4,734 8.8% $4,734 8.8% $3,587 6.7% $6,450 12.0% 100.0%

19 $4,896 6.5% $4,896 6.5% $120 0.2% $15,290 20.2% 100.0%

20 $5,108 4.9% $5,033 4.9% $1,630 1.6% $13,270 12.8% 98.5%

21 $5,714 5.6% $5,714 5.6% $4,000 3.9% $7,000 6.8% 100.0%

22 $5,872 9.1% $5,872 9.1% $2,850 4.4% $7,410 11.5% 100.0%

23 $5,885 5.6% $5,885 5.6% $1,575 1.5% $8,589 8.2% 100.0%

24 $6,232 6.7% $816 0.9% $1,875 2.0% $12,000 12.8% 13.1%

25 $6,278 8.0% $2,799 3.6% $217 0.3% $20,000 25.4% 44.6%

26 $6,389 7.7% $6,389 7.7% $2,500 3.0% $10,750 12.9% 100.0%

27 $7,375 9.0% $575 0.7% $5,000 6.1% $10,000 12.2% 7.8%

28 $8,000 8.2% $8,000 8.2% $8,000 8.2% $8,000 8.2% 100.0%

29 $8,886 12.0% $8,886 12.0% $6,892 9.3% $9,800 13.2% 100.0%

30 $9,357 10.7% $9,357 10.7% $1,000 1.1% $15,000 17.2% 100.0%

31 $10,711 13.1% $10,711 13.1% $1,600 2.0% $33,625 41.1% 100.0%

Average $4,525 5.5% $3,598 4.4% $1,813 2.2% $8,918 10.7% ―

Median $4,512 4.9% $2,640 3.1% $1,200 1.5% $7,410 8.2% ―

Minimum $814 0.9% $50 0.1% $13 0.0% $1,000 1.0% ―

Maximum $10,711 13.1% $10,711 13.1% $8,000 9.3% $33,625 41.1% ―

Notes: Grantee identification numbers in administrator tables do not correspond with grantee identification numbers in teacher tables in this 

appendix. ― indicates not applicable.

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 school year. 

42
Exhibit B-3. Teacher payout awards by component

Student 

Achievement

Supports for 

Improving Practice

Performance 

Evaluations

Hard-to-Staff 

Schools and Subjects

Other

Components

Grantee Dollars

% of 

Total Dollars

% of 

Total Dollars

% of 

Total Dollars

% of 

Total Dollars

% of 

Total

Total 

Payouts

1 $12,013,922 86% – – – – $1,909,000 14% – – $13,922,922

2 $11,673,978 99% – – – – – – $105,252 1% $11,779,230

3 $6,037,779 63% – – $3,392,449 35% – – $128,414 1% $9,558,643

4 $882,339 21% $2,145,000 52% $1,077,076 26% – – – – $4,104,415

5 $1,093,873 28% $2,113,330 54% $722,750 18% – – – – $3,929,953

6 $745,850 26% $1,205,000 41% $972,000 33% – – – – $2,922,850

7 $394,875 16% – – – – $2,040,500 84% – – $2,435,375

8 $2,241,000 100% – – – – – – – – $2,241,000

9 $1,111,731 50% – – $1,111,731 50% – – – – $2,223,461

10 $1,250,899 59% $863,698 41% – – – – – – $2,114,597

11 $673,875 33% $660,000 32% $731,397 35% – – – – $2,065,272

12 $419,100 21% $686,500 34% $496,400 25% $414,000 21% – – $2,016,000

13 $1,580,100 100% – – – – – – – – $1,580,100

14 $1,354,840 100% – – – – – – – – $1,354,840

15 $349,013 29% $455,000 38% $394,614 33% – – – – $1,198,626

16 $837,539 76% $88,205 8% $175,382 16% – – $5,625 1% $1,106,751

17 $498,055 48% $268,648 26% $191,000 18% $82,460 8% – – $1,040,164

18 $177,156 17% $525,800 51% $294,875 29% $24,880 2% – – $1,022,711

19 $887,500 100% – – – – – – – – $887,500

20 $263,370 34% $238,500 31% $265,947 35% – – – – $767,817

21 $607,910 100% – – – – – – – – $607,910

22 $214,350 37% $167,950 29% $28,025 5% $132,500 23% $44,246 8% $587,071

23 $77,000 14% $215,516 39% $259,400 46% – – $6,000 1% $557,916

24 – – $550,900 100% – – – – – – $550,900

25 $181,842 35% $171,900 33% $167,987 32% – – – – $521,728

26 $194,080 49% $113,500 29% – – $70,000 18% $20,000 5% $397,580

27 $170,000 63% $34,000 13% – – – – $65,500 24% $269,500

28 $241,218 95% – – – – – – $12,800 5% $254,018

29 $36,400 21% $87,100 50% – – – – $50,000 29% $173,500

30 $90,395 64% $51,490 36% – – – – – – $141,885

Notes: The "Supports" category for teachers includes serving as a coach or mentor and attending professional development. The "Other" 

category includes receiving various certifications/credentials and job attendance. Grantee identification numbers in administrator tables do not 

correspond with grantee identification numbers in teacher tables in this appendix: 

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 school year. 

43
Exhibit B-4. Administrator payout awards by component

Student 

Achievement

Supports for 

Improving Practice

Performance 

Evaluations Hard-to-Staff Schools

Other

Components

Grantee Dollars

% of 

Total Dollars

% of 

Total Dollars

% of 

Total Dollars

% of 

Total Dollars

% of 

Total

Total 

Payouts

1 $1,331,219 55% $129,656 5% $258,525 11% $701,250 29% – – $2,420,650 

2 $856,778 100% – – – – – – – – $856,778 

3 $793,767 93% – – – – $60,000 7% – – $853,767 

4 $196,313 50% $196,313 50% – – – – – – $392,625 

5 $36,225 10% $185,400 51% $144,773 40% – – – – $366,398 

6 $229,290 67% – – $112,960 33% – – – – $342,250 

7 $74,150 29% – – – – $178,500 71% – – $252,650 

8 $133,380 53% $119,130 47% – – – – – – $252,510 

9 $69,175 32% – – $148,850 68% – – – – $218,025 

10 $49,131 25% – – $146,545 75% – – – – $195,676 

11 $140,934 74% – – $49,066 26% – – – – $190,000 

12 $130,847 79% $20,804 13% $13,138 8% – – – – $164,788 

13 $69,953 44% $90,000 56% – – – – – – $159,952 

14 $66,375 50% $66,375 50% – – – – – – $132,750 

15 $81,250 71% – – $33,750 29% – – – – $115,000 

16 $105,600 100% – – – – – – – – $105,600 

17 $77,599 100% – – – – – – – – $77,599 

18 $76,000 100% – – – – – – – – $76,000 

19 $31,581 50% $31,581 50% – – – – – – $63,162 

20 $22,600 41% $32,400 59% – – – – – – $55,000 

21 $19,222 44% – – $24,092 56% – – – – $43,313 

22 $28,000 70% – – $12,000 30% – – – – $40,000 

23 $7,000 21% $22,575 68% $3,500 11% – – – – $33,075 

24 $32,550 100% – – – – – – – – $32,550 

25 $16,000 53% – – $14,000 47% – – – – $30,000 

26 $9,750 39% $15,450 61% – – – – – – $25,200 

27 $14,000 74% $1,000 5% $1,800 10% – – $2,137 11% $18,937 

28 $16,000 100% – – – – – – – – $16,000 

29 $2,000 26% $5,700 74% – – – – – – $7,700 

30 $6,969 100% – – – – – – – – $6,969 

31 $6,200 100% – – – – – – – – $6,200 

Notes: The "Supports" category for administrators includes serving as a coach or mentor and attending or providing professional development. 

The "Other" category includes receiving various certifications/credentials and job attendance. Grantee identification numbers in administrator 

tables do not correspond with grantee identification numbers in teacher tables in this appendix. 

Source: Grantee-submitted payout data from 2010–11 school year. 

44
Appendix C. Standard Error Tables

This appendix provides standard errors for the data in the exhibits presented in the report, as 

well as n sizes and weighted n’s. The weighted n’s represent the estimated number of teachers 

and principals represented by the respondents for each item and respondent category 

presented.

Item-level response rates for the teacher and principal surveys were generally high, in most 

cases over 90%.

Exhibit C-1. Item-level response rates for teacher and principal surveys

Item-Level 

Response Rate

Number of Questions

on the Teacher Survey

Number of Questions

on the Principal Survey

90% or higher 27 32

80-89% 0 0 

70-79% 0 1 

Notes: This table incorporates adjusted response rates due to skip patterns. 

45
Exhibit C-2. Standard errors for Exhibit 16: Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement that the 

performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators

Survey Item Educator

Strongly 

Disagree

Standard 

Error Disagree

Standard 

Error Agree 

Standard 

Error

Strongly 

Agree 

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

The performance pay 

program is clearly 

communicated to

educators.

Teacher 21.3 1.1 34.5 1.1 35.2 1.1 9.0 0.7 5,710 46,588

The performance pay 

program is clearly 

communicated to

educators.

Principal 5.4 1.4 27.4 2.3 48.3 2.6 18.9 2.1 444 1,361

46
Exhibit C-3. Standard errors for Exhibit 17: Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement that the 

performance pay project was clearly communicated to educators, by grantee size

Survey Item Size Educator

Strongly 

Disagree

Standard 

Error Disagree

Standard 

Error Agree 

Standard 

Error

Strongly 

Agree 

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

The performance pay 

program is clearly 

communicated to

educators.

Small Teacher 7.0 1.0 21.1 1.2 48.7 1.5 23.2 1.5 1,697 2,755

The performance pay 

program is clearly 

communicated to

educators.

Medium Teacher 14.5 1.0 27.6 1,1 46.0 1.3 11.8 0.8 2,472 8,614

The performance pay 

program is clearly 

communicated to

educators.

Large Teacher 19.7 1.6 39.5 1.5 32.8 1.6 8.1 1.1 1,266 28,629

The performance pay 

program is clearly 

communicated to

educators.

Small Principal 2.9 2.0 11.5 4.2 48.6 5.7 37.0 5.2 67 79

The performance pay 

program is clearly 

communicated to

educators.

Medium Principal 1.8 1.4 21.3 3.2 55.7 4.1 21.2 3.4 176 360

The performance pay 

program is clearly 

communicated to

educators.

Large Principal 6.1 1.7 29.7 3.2 48.3 3.6 15.9 2.7 183 793

47
Exhibit C-4. Standard errors for Exhibit 18: Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of understanding of certain aspects of their 

performance pay project

Survey Item Not at All

Standard 

Error Somewhat

Standard 

Error Well

Standard 

Error Very Well

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

Goals of the program 16.3 0.9 36.0 1.1 30.2 1.0 17.4 0.8 5,729 47,072

Activities or achievements for which 

you can earn incentive pay 19.2 1.0 36.7 1.1 28.1 0.9 16.0 0.8 5,726 47,053

How your work as a teacher is 

evaluated for the program 26.8 1.1 37.6 1.0 23.5 0.9 12.1 0.7 5,740 47,221

How incentive amounts are calculated 43.2 1.3 36.1 0.9 13.6 0.6 7.1 0.6 5,726 47,068

Exhibit C-5. Standard errors for Exhibit 19: Percentage of principals who reported various degrees of understanding of certain aspects of 

their performance pay project

Survey Item Not at All

Standard 

Error Somewhat

Standard 

Error Well

Standard 

Error Very Well

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

Goals of the program 15.1 2.1 17.0 2.0 33.3 2.5 34.3 2.5 467 1,469

Activities or achievements for 

which you can earn incentive 

pay

15.6 2.1 20.8 2.2 30.6 2.3 33.1 2.3 467 1,469

How your work as a principal 

is evaluated for the program 21.9 2.1 22.7 2.2 30.2 2.3 25.2 2.1 467 1,466

How incentive amounts are 

calculated 25.4 2.4 30.9 2.5 22.1 2.1 21.6 2.0 468 1,470

48
Exhibit C-6. Standard errors for Exhibit 20: Percentage of educators who reported receiving various types of support to help them earn an 

incentive award

Survey Item Educator Percent Standard Error n 

Weighted 

n

Professional development Teacher 62.0 1.4 5,647 46,119

Professional development Principal 61.8 2.5 450 1,412

Observation, evaluation, or feedback from my peers Teacher 47.5 1.3 5,617 45,871

Observation, evaluation, or feedback from my peers Principal 55.9 2.6 447 1,392

Mentoring or coaching Teacher 33.5 1.1 5,604 45,823

Mentoring or coaching Principal 37.9 2.4 445 1,390

Exhibit C-7. Standard errors for Exhibit 21: Percentage of educators who reported various degrees of agreement about whether the size of 

the possible award was large enough to motivate them to earn it

Survey Item Educator

Strongly 

Disagree

Standard 

Error Disagree

Standard 

Error Agree 

Standard 

Error

Strongly 

Agree 

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

The size of the possible 

award is large enough to 

motivate me to earn it.

Teacher 12.1 1.0 33.4 1.2 43.8 1.3 11.6 0.9 4,040 27,236

Principal 12.5 1.8 32.8 2.4 40.3 2.6 15.4 2.0 442 1,352

49
Exhibit C-8. Standard errors for Exhibit 22: Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement about the 

fairness of certain aspects of their performance pay project

Strongly Standard Standard Standard Strongly Standard Weighted 

Survey Item Educator Disagree Error Disagree Error Agree Error Agree Error n n

The performance 

fair.

pay system is Teacher 16.5 1.2 37.8 1.3 40.6 1.5 5.1 0.5 3,905 25,889

The program does a good job 

distinguishing effective from 

ineffective teachers at my 

school.

of 

Teacher 23.5 1.1 47.4 1.1 25.1 1.1 4.0 0.4 5,624 45,434

The formal 

was fair.

evaluation I received Teacher 5.8 0.7 15.0 1.1 61.4 1.3 17.8 1.1 3,905 25,774

The performance 

fair.

pay system is Principal 6.8 2.0 29.6 3.0 53.7 3.0 9.9 2.0 438 1,337

The program does a good job of 

distinguishing effective from 

ineffective teachers at my 

school.

Principal 7.0 1.6 41.5 3.0 41.7 3.0 9.8 1.5 387 1,120

The formal evaluation I received 

was fair. Principal 4.6 1.3 13.6 1.9 64.3 2.7 17.5 2.3 434 1,314

50
Exhibit C-9. Standard errors for Exhibit 23: Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of agreement with certain statements 

about the performance pay system’s fairness and effectiveness, by award rate

Survey Item Award Rate

Strongly 

Disagree

Standard 

Error Disagree

Standard 

Error Agree 

Standard 

Error

Strongly 

Agree 

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

The program does a good job of 

distinguishing effective from 

ineffective teachers at my school.

100% 24.8 2.0 46.1 1.8 23.8 1.5 5.2 0.8 2,034 8,746

The program does a good job of 

distinguishing effective from 

ineffective teachers at my school.

72–99% 12.4 0.8 45.6 1.4 36.2 1.4 5.7 0.7 1,907 5,178

The program does a good job of 

distinguishing effective from 

ineffective teachers at my school.

9–61% 25.9 1.5 48.0 1.5 23.6 1.5 3.4 0.5 1,472 31,208

The performance pay system is fair. 100% 21.0 2.3 37.2 2.1 35.7 2.1 6.1 0.9 1,602 6,776

The performance pay system is fair. 72–99% 9.4 0.9 29.1 1.5 52.0 1.7 9.5 0.9 1,319 3,373

The performance pay system is fair. 9–61% 16.1 1.7 39.9 2.0 40.3 2.3 3.7 0.6 805 15,487

51
Exhibit C-10. Standard errors for Exhibit 24: Percentage of teachers who reported various degrees of agreement with statements about their 

job satisfaction

Survey Item

Strongly 

Disagree

Standard 

Error Disagree

Standard 

Error Agree 

Standard 

Error

Strongly 

Agree 

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

My job satisfaction has increased due to 

performance pay. 22.3 0.9 54.1 1.0 19.1 0.8 4.5 0.4 5,579 44,773

The stress and disappointments involved in 

teaching at this school are greater due to 

performance pay.

15.2 1.0 52.1 1.1 23.3 0.9 9.4 0.6 5,582 44,744

I feel increased pressure to perform due to 

performance pay. 13.1 0.8 43.4 1.1 30.8 0.9 12.7 0.6 5,589 44,840

52
Exhibit C-11. Standard errors for Exhibit 25: Percentage of educators who reported various degrees of agreement with statements about the 

effects of performance pay on attracting and retaining effective teachers

Survey Item Educator

Strongly 

Disagree

Standard 

Error Disagree

Standard 

Error Agree 

Standard 

Error

Strongly 

Agree 

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

Our performance pay 

program helps schools 

retain effective teachers.

Teacher 18.0 0.8 41.7 0.9 35.1 1.1 5.2 0.5 5,628 45,379

Our performance pay 

program helps schools 

attract effective teachers.

Teacher 18.9 0.8 48.8 1.0 28.7 1.0 3.6 0.4 5,615 45,327

The performance pay 

program has encouraged 

effective teachers to remain 

at my school.

Principal 9.9 2.0 36.8 2.9 44.2 2.9 9.1 1.6 387 1,113

The performance pay 

program has helped me 

recruit effective teachers at 

my school. 

Principal 14.0 2.2 52.2 2.9 29.1 2.3 4.7 1.1 387 1,122

53
Exhibit C-12. Standard errors for Exhibit 26: Percentage of teachers and principals who reported various degrees of agreement with 

statements about whether teachers worked harder or altered their instructional practices due to performance pay

Survey Item Educator

Strongly 

Disagree

Standard 

Error Disagree

Standard 

Error Agree 

Standard 

Error

Strongly 

Agree 

Standard 

Error n 

Weighted 

n

I have altered my instructional 

practices as a result of the 

performance pay program.

Teacher 13.2 0.8 48.0 1.4 32.5 1.4 6.2 0.6 3,929 26,004

The performance pay program 

encourages teachers to work harder 

than in previous years to get more 

pay.

Teacher 15.3 0.9 32.7 1.1 41.3 1.1 10.8 0.7 5,677 46,097

Teachers have altered their 

instructional practices as a result of 

the performance pay program.

Principal 3.9 1.1 29.7 2.8 55.5 3.0 10.9 1.7 387 1,112

The performance pay program 

encourages teachers to work harder 

than in previous years to get more 

pay.

Principal 4.3 1.4 25.3 2.6 51.8 3.1 18.6 2.3 389 1,128

54

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote 

student achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and 

ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov