TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS & INCENTIVES
A growing body of evidence from Pakistan and similar settings reveals that teachers matter — a lot. Across multiple groundbreaking studies, LEAPS researchers have unpacked what makes teachers effective, how school systems can attract and retain the best teaching talent, and which incentives really move the needle for students. Read the studies below. Read About:
Inducing Positive Sorting through Performance Pay
Authors: Christina Brown and Tahir Andrabi
Citation: Brown, Christina and Tahir Andrabi. 2022. “Inducing Positive Sorting through Performance Pay: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan Schools”, Working Paper.
Questions and Findings
Can introducing performance-based pay in schools help attract and retain better teachers? How do teacher incentives and student outcomes vary under different pay structures?
Performance Pay Boosts Student Outcomes: Students taught by teachers given performance-based pay achieved both higher test scores (by 0.12 SD) and higher socioemotional skills (by 0.10 SD), compared to students of teachers on fixed contracts.
Evidence of Positive Sorting: When offered the choice between a fixed salary and performance-based pay, higher-ability teachers were 30% more likely to opt for the latter.
Information Matters: Teachers made better, more informed choices about contract type when they had clear information about their own abilities and about the pay structure.
Switching Costs Impact Selection: The propensity for high-performing teachers to sort into performance pay roles was reduced by real-world “frictions,” e.g. uncertainty, and effort required to switch contracts.
Why This Matters
This research shows that well-designed performance pay systems can help schools attract and retain more effective teachers, as long as both teachers and administrators have good information.
However, the benefits depend on keeping switching costs low and ensuring transparency. Performance pay, by itself, isn’t a magic bullet, but when paired with clear communication and support, it can move the needle on teacher quality and student learning.
Policymakers and school leaders interested in performance incentives need to consider both the design of contracts and the practical realities of teacher decision-making to maximize impact.
Subjective vs. Objective Incentives and Productivity
Authors: Tahir Andrabi and Christina Brown
Citation: Andrabi, Tahir and Christina Brown. 2022. “Subjective versus Objective Incentives and Teacher Productivity”, RISE Working Paper Series. 22/092
Questions and Findings
Do performance-pay based on objective measures (like test scores) or subjective evaluations (like supervisor ratings) work better for improving teacher productivity in schools?
Both Incentives Boost Productivity: Learning improved under both types of performance pay measures by around 0.9 SDs.
Subjective Incentives Boost Broader Effort: Subjective incentives also led to improvements in teacher behaviors, such as classroom engagement and attendance.
Subjective Incentives are Better for Socioemotional Outcomes: Relative to objective incentives, which often made teachers focus only on test scores, subjective incentives also improved student socioemotional outcomes.
Variability Across Schools: The effectiveness of subjective versus objective incentives varied by school context, with some principals using discretion to reward overall contribution, while others stuck closely to academic outcomes.
Why This Matters
This study highlights that both types of performance pay—objective and subjective—can motivate teachers and generate meaningful improvements in classroom effort.
Both incentives yield modest but significant test score gains, while subjective incentives can promote broader teacher engagement and therefore also student socioemotional skills. The right approach may depend on local context and leadership.
Policymakers and school leaders designing teacher incentive programs should consider blending both approaches to match their educational goals and school environments, as relying solely on test scores or principal discretion may miss out on some broader benefits.
Teacher Value Added in a Low-Income Country
Authors: Natalie Bau and Jishnu Das
Citation: Bau, Natalie and Jishnu Das. 2020. “Teacher value added in a low-income country.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(1), pp.62-96.
Questions and Findings
Do teachers really make a difference to how much students learn? If yes, what teacher qualities most influence success?
Teacher Impact Is Large: The difference between a teacher in the top 5% vs. the bottom 5% of “value-added” is equal to moving a student by 0.5 standard deviations on test scores over two years—a substantial effect comparable to results from high-income countries.
Pay Doesn’t Predict Effectiveness: Higher public sector salaries do not correspond to greater classroom effectiveness among teachers.
Experience Matters, But Plateaus: More than half of all gains from teacher experience are realized in the first 15 years of teaching.
Subject Knowledge is Key: Teachers’ own subject knowledge is strongly correlated with student learning gains. Teacher education credentials, years of schooling, and salary are not.
Why This Matters
The study confirms that effective teachers are vital for student success. Investing in identifying, developing, and retaining skilled teachers could yield large gains in learning, even in challenging contexts.
Traditional hiring and promotion practices — based on years of experience, credentials, or salary — aren’t enough. Instead, policies and programs that prioritize real classroom skill and strong subject knowledge could offer a much bigger payoff for students.
Students Today, Teachers Tomorrow
Authors: Tahir Andrabi, Jishnu Das, and Asim I. Khwaja
Citation: Andrabi, Tahir, Jishnu Das, and Asim I. Khwaja. 2013. “Students Today, Teachers Tomorrow: Identifying Constraints on the Provision of Education.” Journal of Public Economics, 100: 1-14.
Questions and Findings
How does the supply of educated women influence the growth of private education. What roles do government investments play in this process?
Educated Women Spark Private School Growth: Villages with government girls’ secondary schools (GSSs) were three times more likely to have private schools, compared to similar villages without GSSs.
It’s a Supply-Side Channel: The presence of a GSS doubled the number of educated women in a village, creating a local pool of potential teachers for private schools.
Teacher Wages Fall, Making Private Schools Viable: In villages with a GSS, female teacher wages were 27% lower, making it more affordable for private schools to operate and hire staff.
Impact is Unique to Girls: The relationship between more schools and private sector growth did not hold for government boys’ schools or primary schools, highlighting the unique role of girls’ education.
Why This Matters
By demonstrating how public investment in girls’ education can trigger private school growth, this study reveals a powerful way to expand educational access in low-income countries.
When more girls are educated, they become local teachers, lowering costs and fueling a vibrant private school market. This points to a key, often-overlooked benefit of investing in girls’ secondary schooling: it doesn’t just help the girls themselves, but enables private education options for everyone in the community.
Policymakers focused on expanding access should consider the intergenerational ripple effects of investing in girls’ education, especially for teacher supply and school choices.