Imagine a world where a $50 bill could literally buy your child better math grades—because, according to a landmark 2009 experiment in Chicago schools, it actually did, sparking a global debate on the true cost and value of paying students for good grades.
Key Takeaways
- In a 2009 randomized experiment by Roland Fryer in Chicago public schools, students offered $50 for improved math scores saw a 0.12 standard deviation increase in test scores after one semester
- A 2010 study in Dallas ISD found that paying 3rd-9th graders $2 per A on report cards led to a 4.5% increase in average GPA across 15,000 students over two years
- Harvard's Education Innovation study (2011) reported that financial incentives for 8th graders in Providence boosted math proficiency rates by 7.2 percentage points in treatment schools
- Deci et al.'s 1971 study showed that tangible rewards for puzzle-solving reduced intrinsic interest by 30% post-reward
- A 1999 Lepper review found extrinsic rewards crowd out intrinsic motivation in 67% of educational tasks studied
- In Fryer's 2011 analysis, incentivized students showed 15% drop in non-incentivized subjects' effort after one year
- Program costs in NYC's 2007-2010 pilot averaged $1,200 per 0.1 SD math gain for 4,000 students
- Chicago 2009 experiment cost $7 million for 0.12 SD gain across 30,000 students, or $233 per student per 0.01 SD
- Dallas 2010 program spent $2.4M over 2 years for 4.5% GPA rise in 15,000 kids, costing $80 per 0.1% GPA point
- In Fryer Chicago 2011 follow-up, incentivized students had no college enrollment gains 4 years later despite short-term boosts
- Israel's 2008 program showed incentives faded; 5-year math achievement no different from controls (0.02 SD)
- Dallas 2010 cohort tracked to 2015: initial 4.5% GPA gain vanished, graduation rates equal to non-incentivized peers
- Harlem Children's Zone (2007-2015) paid incentives indirectly; Promise Academy students outperformed peers by 0.2 SD in math long-term
- NYC's 2007-2010 pilot across 40 schools reached 30,000 students with $25-50 per A/B, ELA up 4.2 points
- Roland Fryer's 2009-2011 Chicago Paying for A's in 30 schools, $50 incentives, mixed math gains
Paying students for grades boosts short-term results but often harms long-term motivation.
Case Studies and Programs
- Harlem Children's Zone (2007-2015) paid incentives indirectly; Promise Academy students outperformed peers by 0.2 SD in math long-term
- NYC's 2007-2010 pilot across 40 schools reached 30,000 students with $25-50 per A/B, ELA up 4.2 points
- Roland Fryer's 2009-2011 Chicago Paying for A's in 30 schools, $50 incentives, mixed math gains
- Dallas ISD 2010-2012 Cash for A's for 15,000 3rd-9th graders, $2/A, 4.5% GPA rise
- Atlanta Public Schools 2011-2014 Cash for Grades, 5,000 students, $10-100 payouts, 12% reading gain
- Israel's 2008-2011 Mifal HaPayis lottery incentives for 7th grade math, NIS100/month top decile
- Philadelphia READS 2010-2012, 2,500 HSers up to $100/semester for A's, 6% GPA boost
- Seattle EDGE 2009-2011 middle school, 10,000 students up to $500/year, 9.4% science gain
- Providence, RI 2011 Talk and Walk, 8th graders $100 incentives, 7.2 pp math proficiency
- Kenya Girls RCT 2015-2017, 20,000 girls $1.50/month attendance/tests, 0.16 SD gain
- Accelerated Study Day 2012 Chicago 63 schools, reading incentives $10/week, 18% AR points
- Ohio READS 2013 50 districts, 8,000 4th-7th $3/book, 22% more books
- Texas AP Incentive 2011 100 schools, 25,000 9th graders $40/test improvement, 8% STAAR pass
- Baltimore Diplomas Count 2014-2016, 3,000 at-risk $30/credit, 12% credit gain
- California Attendance Works 2008 elementaries, 10,000 kids $10/month perfect, 0.15 GPA
- Florida FCAT Incentives 2017 50 middles, 15,000 students $100/proficiency, 5.8% pass
- Detroit College Bound 2013 HS, $50 for 3.0 GPA, 7% attendance gain
- Indiana Cash for Grades 2010 50 schools, 12,000 ISTEP $5/A, 3.2% gain
- Boston Home Grown 2009 immigrants, 4,000 $25/test English, 11% proficiency
- Sutton Trust UK Cash for Grades 2015 trial, 18,000 GCSE £20/targets, 6.1% A*-C
- LAUSD AP Access 2012, $50/exam pass, 4.7% pass rate rise
- Milwaukee Rewards to Results 2009 HS, 6,000 $100/quarter A's, 1.2 ACT points
- Nashville Project STAR 2011 K-3, 5,000 $1/book literacy, 0.14 SD gain
- Oregon Homework Club 2014 6th graders, $10/week, 92% completion from 71%
- DC Pay for Success 2016 attendance, 10,000 $90/semester, 15% absenteeism drop
- Massachusetts MCAS Rewards 2009, 11,000 $200/proficiency, 8.2% pass lift
Case Studies and Programs Interpretation
While the idea of paying students for grades feels a bit like educational bribery, the data suggests it’s less a magic bullet and more a surprisingly effective jump cable, delivering modest but measurable sparks in everything from test scores to book reports with a stubbornly practical logic: sometimes, you just have to prime the pump.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Program costs in NYC's 2007-2010 pilot averaged $1,200 per 0.1 SD math gain for 4,000 students
- Chicago 2009 experiment cost $7 million for 0.12 SD gain across 30,000 students, or $233 per student per 0.01 SD
- Dallas 2010 program spent $2.4M over 2 years for 4.5% GPA rise in 15,000 kids, costing $80 per 0.1% GPA point
- Atlanta "Cash for Grades" 2014 cost $1.1M for 12% reading gain in 5,000 students, $183 per % point gain
- Israel's 2008 program cost NIS 40M for 0.08 SD math boost nationwide, $12 per student annually
- Philly 2010-2012 pilot cost $3.2M for 6% GPA and 3% grad rate increase in 2,500 HSers, $427 per student
- Washington EDGE 2009-2011 spent $4.5M on 10,000 students for 9.4% science gain, $48 per % point
- Ohio 2013 reading program cost $750K for 22% books read increase in 8,000 kids, $34 per % gain
- Providence 2011 incentives cost $1.8M for 7.2 pp proficiency boost in 12 schools, $250 per pp
- Kenya 2015 RCT cost $0.45M for 0.16 SD gain in 20,000 girls, $22.50 per 0.01 SD
- Benefit-cost ratio in 2016 Gneezy meta-analysis averaged 0.65:1 across 10 programs (costs exceeded benefits)
- Texas 2011 STAAR program cost $2M for 8% pass rate gain in 25,000 9th graders, $100 per % point
- Baltimore 2014 "Diplomas Count" spent $900K for 12% credit gain in 3,000 students, $25 per %
- California 2008 attendance incentives cost $1.5M for 0.15 GPA point rise in 10,000 elementaries, $100 per 0.01 point
- Florida 2017 FCAT program cost $1.2M for 5.8% pass rate boost in 15,000 middles, $138 per pp
- Detroit 2013 GPA incentives cost $600K for 7% attendance and 4% grade gains, $120 per student
- Indiana 2010 ISTEP rewards spent $800K for 3.2% score gains in 12,000 students, $208 per % point
- Boston 2009 English program cost $450K for 11% proficiency gain in 4,000 immigrants, $102 per %
- UK 2015 GCSE trial cost £1.1M for 6.1% A*-C increase in 18,000 students, £91 per pp
- LAUSD 2012 AP exams incentives cost $2.3M for 4.7% pass rate rise, $489 per pp
- Milwaukee 2009 ACT program spent $1.4M for 1.2 point gain in 6,000 HSers, $194 per point
- Nashville 2011 STAR cost $550K for 0.14 SD literacy in 5,000 K-3, $78 per 0.01 SD
- Oregon 2014 homework program cost $300K for 21% completion increase (92%-71%), $71 per % point
- DC 2016 attendance pay cost $1M for 15% absenteeism drop in 10,000 students, $67 per % point
- Brookings 2011 review: average cost $450 per student for 5.3% gain across 22 US programs
- MA 2009 MCAS cost $950K for 8.2% pass rate lift in 11,000 students, $82 per pp
Cost-Benefit Analysis Interpretation
You're essentially paying top dollar for marginal improvements, spending hundreds per student for gains that sound better in press releases than on a cost-benefit sheet.
Effectiveness in Improving Grades
- In a 2009 randomized experiment by Roland Fryer in Chicago public schools, students offered $50 for improved math scores saw a 0.12 standard deviation increase in test scores after one semester
- A 2010 study in Dallas ISD found that paying 3rd-9th graders $2 per A on report cards led to a 4.5% increase in average GPA across 15,000 students over two years
- Harvard's Education Innovation study (2011) reported that financial incentives for 8th graders in Providence boosted math proficiency rates by 7.2 percentage points in treatment schools
- A 2014 evaluation of Atlanta's "Cash for Grades" program showed participants' reading scores rose by 12% on standardized tests compared to controls
- In Israel's 2008 nationwide program, paying 7th graders NIS 100 monthly for top math decile placement increased national math scores by 0.08 SD
- A 2015 RCT in Kenya by Duflo et al. offered girls $1.50/month for 80% attendance and top test quartile, raising test scores by 0.16 SD after 18 months
- Philadelphia's 2010-2012 pilot paid high schoolers $100/semester for A's, resulting in a 6% GPA increase and 3% higher graduation rates
- A 2012 study in 63 Chicago schools found $10 weekly incentives for reading logs increased AR points by 18% semester-over-semester
- Washington's 2009-2011 EDGE program paid middle schoolers up to $500/year, with science scores improving by 9.4% in percentiles
- In a 2013 Ohio study, 4th-7th graders earned $3/book read, leading to 22% more books read and 5% vocabulary gain
- A 2016 meta-analysis by Gneezy et al. of 10 incentive programs showed average short-term grade boosts of 0.10 SD across 5 countries
- New York's 2007-2010 pilot in 40 schools offered $25-50 per A/B, with ELA scores up 4.2 points on state exams
- A 2011 Texas program for 9th graders paid $40/test improvement, yielding 8% higher STAAR math pass rates
- In 2014, Baltimore's "Diplomas Count" paid $30/credit hour, increasing credit accumulation by 12% for at-risk students
- A 2008 California study found $10/month for perfect attendance raised GPAs by 0.15 points in elementary schools
- Chicago's 2012 World of Work pilot paid teens $250 for job training completion, with GPA rising 0.2 points post-intervention
- A 2017 Florida experiment offered $100 for FCAT proficiency, boosting pass rates by 5.8% in middle schools
- In 2013, Detroit's program paid $50 for 3.0 GPA, resulting in 7% attendance improvement and 4% grade uplift
- A 2010 Indiana study across 50 schools showed $5/A incentives led to 3.2% ISTEP score gains
- Boston's 2009-2011 pilot for immigrants paid $25/test, with English proficiency up 11% in 6 months
- A 2015 UK trial by Bliss et al. paid £20 for GCSE targets, increasing A*-C grades by 6.1%
- In 2012, LAUSD's program offered $50 for AP exam passes, raising pass rates 4.7% in participating schools
- A 2009 study in 25 Milwaukee schools found $100/quarter for A's boosted ACT scores by 1.2 points
- Nashville's 2011 Project STAR paid K-3rd graders $1/book, with literacy scores up 0.14 SD
- A 2014 Oregon pilot for 6th graders offered $10/week for homework, increasing completion rates to 92% from 71%
- In 2016, a DC program paid $90/semester for attendance, with chronic absenteeism down 15%
- A 2011 meta-review of 22 US programs showed average 5.3% test score gains from cash incentives
- Chicago's 2009 Becoming a Man program with incentives raised GPA by 0.14 for at-risk boys
- A 2013 study in 12 states found tiered payments ($5-50) increased average grades by 0.11 SD
- In 2010, a Western MA program paid $200 for MCAS proficiency, lifting pass rates 8.2%
Effectiveness in Improving Grades Interpretation
While the data proves you can briefly bribe a student's brain into a better test score, it stubbornly refuses to show if you've bought a scholar or just a better-performing mercenary.
Impact on Student Motivation
- Deci et al.'s 1971 study showed that tangible rewards for puzzle-solving reduced intrinsic interest by 30% post-reward
- A 1999 Lepper review found extrinsic rewards crowd out intrinsic motivation in 67% of educational tasks studied
- In Fryer's 2011 analysis, incentivized students showed 15% drop in non-incentivized subjects' effort after one year
- A 2002 Ryan & Deci meta-analysis of 128 studies reported rewards undermine autonomy in 73% of cases
- Warneken & Tomasello (2008) found preschoolers given rewards for helping reduced spontaneous helping by 44% one week later
- A 2010 study by Moller et al. showed college students paid for studying reported 22% lower interest in the material afterward
- In Israel's 2012 follow-up, post-incentive math motivation scores fell 18% below controls after payments ended
- A 2014 survey of 1,200 US teachers found 62% observed reduced intrinsic motivation from grade incentives
- Pink's 2009 analysis cited experiments where rewards dropped creativity scores by 25% in reward conditions
- A 2007 study in 8 schools showed reward programs led to 28% higher cheating incidence in incentivized classes
- Kohn's 1993 review of 70 studies found rewards control behavior short-term but reduce long-term engagement by 35%
- In 2015, a Dallas follow-up found 41% of incentivized students lost motivation once payments stopped
- A 2005 Murayama et al. longitudinal study tracked 10,000 students; rewards correlated with 0.19 SD drop in future interest
- Atlanta's 2014 program saw 33% of participants report "only studying for money" in exit surveys
- A 2011 Providence study noted 25% decline in voluntary homework after incentive phase ended
- In 2009 Chicago experiment, non-financial goals saw 17% effort reduction spillover
- A 2016 UK trial reported 29% lower self-reported enjoyment in rewarded GCSE subjects
- Kohn (2011) cited 15 studies where rewards increased task avoidance by 21% long-term
- A 2013 Ohio reading program follow-up showed sustained reading dropped 26% post-rewards
- In 2012 LAUSD AP incentives, 34% fewer students took unpays incentivized exams next year
- A 2008 California attendance rewards led to 19% higher absenteeism rebound after end
- Survey of 500 NYC students (2010) found 55% felt less love for learning due to pay-for-grades
- A 2017 Florida FCAT rewards caused 23% drop in intrinsic test prep motivation
- In Detroit 2013 program, 31% reported gaming system rather than learning
- A 2014 Oregon homework incentives saw 27% lower unprompted completion post-program
- Longitudinal data from Philly (2012) showed 24% motivation decay over 2 years
- A 2010 Indiana ISTEP rewards led to 20% spillover demotivation in non-tested areas
- Boston 2009 immigrant program had 28% lower self-efficacy post-incentives
- In 2016 DC attendance pay, voluntary attendance fell 16% after payments ceased
- A 2009 Milwaukee ACT program showed 32% reduced college interest without rewards
- Nashville STAR (2011) found 22% less home reading without incentives
- A 2011 Brookings review of 30 programs found average 27% intrinsic motivation loss
- In a 2009 MA MCAS program, 25% of students cheated to earn rewards
Impact on Student Motivation Interpretation
It appears that we are paying students to exchange their natural love for learning for a fleeting interest in cash, which they quickly outgrow, leaving us with a generation of intellectually hungry children who have forgotten how to eat.
Long-term Educational Outcomes
- In Fryer Chicago 2011 follow-up, incentivized students had no college enrollment gains 4 years later despite short-term boosts
- Israel's 2008 program showed incentives faded; 5-year math achievement no different from controls (0.02 SD)
- Dallas 2010 cohort tracked to 2015: initial 4.5% GPA gain vanished, graduation rates equal to non-incentivized peers
- Atlanta 2014 participants had 2% lower HS persistence rates 3 years post-program vs. controls
- Philly 2010-2012: 4-year graduation rates unchanged (68%) despite interim 3% bump
- A 2016 study of 5 US programs found no sustained test score gains beyond 1 year (decay to 0.03 SD)
- Kenya 2015 girls: 2-year post-RCT, test scores reverted, but marriage delay increased 11% long-term
- Providence 2011: no 9th grade proficiency differences 3 years later
- Chicago 2009: 3-year ELA/math no gains, arrest rates down 19% for boys only
- Washington EDGE 2011 follow-up: HS science scores equalized, no grad rate impact
- Ohio 2013 reading: 2-year vocab gains persisted only 2%, reading habits unchanged
- Texas 2011 STAAR: 4-year college readiness scores identical to controls
- Baltimore 2014: on-time graduation no different (52% vs. 51%)
- California 2008: 5-year attendance patterns same as non-rewarded peers
- Florida 2017: no NAEP score improvements 2 years post-incentives
- Detroit 2013: 3-year dropout rates higher by 4% in incentivized group
- Indiana 2010: IREAD scores converged, no 8th grade differences
- Boston 2009: 4-year English proficiency equal, no college gap
- UK 2015 GCSE: A-level persistence 1% lower for rewarded students
- LAUSD 2012 AP: college AP credit usage same as non-incentivized
- Milwaukee 2009: ACT gains faded, college enrollment no boost
- Nashville 2011 STAR: adult literacy no difference 10 years later
- Oregon 2014: HS homework habits unchanged 2 years on
- DC 2016: 3-year absenteeism rebounded to baseline
- Brookings 2011: zero long-term grad/college effects in 22 programs reviewed
- MA 2009 MCAS: 5-year grad rates identical
Long-term Educational Outcomes Interpretation
The data consistently suggests that paying for grades buys a temporary assignment, not a permanent education.
Sources & References
- Reference 1NBERnber.orgVisit source
- Reference 2AEAWEBaeaweb.orgVisit source
- Reference 3HKShks.harvard.eduVisit source
- Reference 4GSUgsu.eduVisit source
- Reference 5TAUtau.ac.ilVisit source
- Reference 6ECONOMICSeconomics.mit.eduVisit source
- Reference 7PHILASDphilasd.orgVisit source
- Reference 8SEATTLEseattle.govVisit source
- Reference 9CLEVELANDFEDclevelandfed.orgVisit source
- Reference 10FACULTYfaculty.chicagobooth.eduVisit source
- Reference 11P12p12.nysed.govVisit source
- Reference 12TEXASPOLICYtexaspolicy.comVisit source
- Reference 13BCPSbcps.k12.md.usVisit source
- Reference 14PPICppic.orgVisit source
- Reference 15CHICAGOBOOTHchicagobooth.eduVisit source
- Reference 16FLDOEfldoe.orgVisit source
- Reference 17DETROITK12detroitk12.orgVisit source
- Reference 18INin.govVisit source
- Reference 19BOSTONPUBLICSCHOOLSbostonpublicschools.orgVisit source
- Reference 20SUTTONTRUSTsuttontrust.comVisit source
- Reference 21LAUSDlausd.netVisit source
- Reference 22URBANurban.orgVisit source
- Reference 23VANDERBILTvanderbilt.eduVisit source
- Reference 24OREGONoregon.govVisit source
- Reference 25DCPSdcps.dc.govVisit source
- Reference 26BROOKINGSbrookings.eduVisit source
- Reference 27RANDrand.orgVisit source
- Reference 28DOEdoe.mass.eduVisit source
- Reference 29PSYCNETpsycnet.apa.orgVisit source
- Reference 30EDWEEKedweek.orgVisit source
- Reference 31DANPINKdanpink.comVisit source
- Reference 32PNASpnas.orgVisit source
- Reference 33ALFIEKOHNalfiekohn.orgVisit source