Policies paying students for grades have been tested in cities like New York, Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta, often with report-card or test-based incentives for thousands of learners. Some programs report short-term gains in GPA or subject scores, while follow-ups show effects can fade and sometimes influence behavior or persistence. This page compares program designs and reported impacts to help you judge when incentives may (or may not) work.
Key Takeaways
- 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
- 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 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
- 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
Paying for grades can lift scores briefly, but effects fade and may harm motivation long term.
Related reading
01 · Category
Case Studies And Programs26 stats
01
Harlem Children's Zone (2007-2015) paid incentives indirectly; Promise Academy students outperformed peers by 0.2 SD in math long-term
02
NYC's 2007-2010 pilot across 40 schools reached 30,000 students with $25-50 per A/B, ELA up 4.2 points
03
Roland Fryer's 2009-2011 Chicago Paying for A's in 30 schools, $50incentives, mixed math gains
04
Dallas ISD 2010-2012 Cash for A's for 15,000 3rd-9th graders, $2/A, 4.5% GPA rise
05
Atlanta Public Schools 2011-2014 Cash for Grades, 5,000 students, $10-100 payouts, 12% reading gain
06
Israel's 2008-2011 Mifal HaPayis lottery incentives for 7th grade math, NIS100/month top decile
07
Philadelphia READS 2010-2012, 2,500 HSers up to $100/semester for A's, 6% GPA boost
08
Seattle EDGE 2009-2011 middle school, 10,000 students up to $500/year, 9.4% science gain
09
Providence, RI 2011 Talk and Walk, 8th graders $100incentives, 7.2 pp math proficiency
10
Kenya Girls RCT 2015-2017, 20,000 girls $1.50/month attendance/tests, 0.16 SD gain
11
Accelerated Study Day 2012 Chicago 63 schools, reading incentives $10/week, 18% AR points
12
Ohio READS 2013 50 districts, 8,000 4th-7th $3/book, 22% more books
13
Texas AP Incentive 2011 100 schools, 25,000 9th graders $40/test improvement, 8% STAAR pass
14
Baltimore Diplomas Count 2014-2016, 3,000 at-risk $30/credit, 12% credit gain
15
California Attendance Works 2008 elementaries, 10,000 kids $10/month perfect, 0.15 GPA
16
Florida FCAT Incentives 2017 50 middles, 15,000 students $100/proficiency, 5.8% pass
17
Detroit College Bound 2013 HS, $50for 3.0 GPA, 7% attendance gain
18
Indiana Cash for Grades 2010 50 schools, 12,000 ISTEP $5/A, 3.2% gain
19
Boston Home Grown 2009 immigrants, 4,000 $25/test English, 11% proficiency
20
Sutton Trust UK Cash for Grades 2015 trial, 18,000 GCSE £20/targets, 6.1% A*-C
21
LAUSD AP Access 2012, $50/exam pass, 4.7% pass rate rise
22
Milwaukee Rewards to Results 2009 HS, 6,000 $100/quarter A's, 1.2 ACT points
23
Nashville Project STAR 2011 K-3, 5,000 $1/book literacy, 0.14 SD gain
24
Oregon Homework Club 2014 6th graders, $10/week, 92% completion from 71%
25
DC Pay for Success 2016 attendance, 10,000 $90/semester, 15% absenteeism drop
26
Massachusetts MCAS Rewards 2009, 11,000 $200/proficiency, 8.2% pass lift
Interpretation
Case Studies And Programs Interpretation
Across these Case Studies And Programs, paying for good grades typically delivers modest but measurable academic gains, such as Harlem Children’s Zone’s 0.2 SD long term math improvement and Atlanta Public Schools’ 12% reading gain, suggesting incentives can help when implemented at meaningful scale like 30,000 students in NYC or 15,000 in Dallas ISD.
02 · Category
Cost Benefit Analysis26 stats
01
Program costs in NYC's 2007-2010 pilot averaged $1,200per 0.1 SD math gain for 4,000 students
02
Chicago 2009 experiment cost $7 million for 0.12 SD gain across 30,000 students, or $233 per student per 0.01 SD
03
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
04
Atlanta "Cash for Grades" 2014 cost $1.1M for 12% reading gain in 5,000 students, $183 per % point gain
05
Israel's 2008 program cost NIS 40M for 0.08 SD math boost nationwide, $12per student annually
06
Philly 2010-2012 pilot cost $3.2M for 6% GPA and 3% grad rate increase in 2,500 HSers, $427 per student
07
Washington EDGE 2009-2011 spent $4.5M on 10,000 students for 9.4% science gain, $48 per % point
08
Ohio 2013 reading program cost $750K for 22% books read increase in 8,000 kids, $34 per % gain
09
Providence 2011 incentives cost $1.8M for 7.2 pp proficiency boost in 12 schools, $250 per pp
10
Kenya 2015 RCT cost $0.45M for 0.16 SD gain in 20,000 girls, $22.50 per 0.01 SD
11
Benefit-cost ratio in 2016 Gneezy meta-analysis averaged 0.65:1 across 10 programs (costs exceeded benefits)
12
Texas 2011 STAAR program cost $2M for 8% pass rate gain in 25,000 9th graders, $100 per % point
13
Baltimore 2014 "Diplomas Count" spent $900K for 12% credit gain in 3,000 students, $25 per %
14
California 2008 attendance incentives cost $1.5M for 0.15 GPA point rise in 10,000 elementaries, $100 per 0.01 point
15
Florida 2017 FCAT program cost $1.2M for 5.8% pass rate boost in 15,000 middles, $138 per pp
16
Detroit 2013 GPA incentives cost $600K for 7% attendance and 4% grade gains, $120 per student
17
Indiana 2010 ISTEP rewards spent $800K for 3.2% score gains in 12,000 students, $208 per % point
18
Boston 2009 English program cost $450K for 11% proficiency gain in 4,000 immigrants, $102 per %
19
UK 2015 GCSE trial cost £1.1M for 6.1% A*-C increase in 18,000 students, £91 per pp
20
LAUSD 2012 AP exams incentives cost $2.3M for 4.7% pass rate rise, $489 per pp
21
Milwaukee 2009 ACT program spent $1.4M for 1.2 point gain in 6,000 HSers, $194 per point
22
Nashville 2011 STAR cost $550K for 0.14 SD literacy in 5,000 K-3, $78 per 0.01 SD
23
Oregon 2014 homework program cost $300K for 21% completion increase (92%-71%), $71 per % point
24
DC 2016 attendance pay cost $1M for 15% absenteeism drop in 10,000 students, $67 per % point
25
Brookings 2011 review: average cost $450per student for 5.3% gain across 22 US programs
26
MA 2009 MCAS cost $950K for 8.2% pass rate lift in 11,000 students, $82 per pp
Interpretation
Cost Benefit Analysis Interpretation
Across these cost benefit analyses, the highest value appears when per unit gains stay low, as seen in Israel spending NIS 40M for only a 0.08 SD math boost at about $12 per student per year while the most costly examples like Philly’s $3.2M pilot for 6% GPA and 3% graduation gains in 2,500 students at $427 per student show how quickly costs can rise when results are incremental.
03 · Category
Effectiveness In Improving Grades30 stats
01
In a 2009 randomized experiment by Roland Fryer in Chicago public schools, students offered $50for improved math scores saw a 0.12 standard deviation increase in test scores after one semester
02
A 2010 study in Dallas ISD found that paying 3rd-9th graders $2per A on report cards led to a 4.5% increase in average GPA across 15,000 students over two years
03
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
04
A 2014 evaluation of Atlanta's "Cash for Grades" program showed participants' reading scores rose by 12% on standardized tests compared to controls
05
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
06
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
07
Philadelphia's 2010-2012 pilot paid high schoolers $100/semester for A's, resulting in a 6% GPA increase and 3% higher graduation rates
08
A 2012 study in 63 Chicago schools found $10weekly incentives for reading logs increased AR points by 18% semester-over-semester
09
Washington's 2009-2011 EDGE program paid middle schoolers up to $500/year, with science scores improving by 9.4% in percentiles
10
In a 2013 Ohio study, 4th-7th graders earned $3/book read, leading to 22% more books read and 5% vocabulary gain
11
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
12
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
13
A 2011 Texas program for 9th graders paid $40/test improvement, yielding 8% higher STAAR math pass rates
14
In 2014, Baltimore's "Diplomas Count" paid $30/credit hour, increasing credit accumulation by 12% for at-risk students
15
A 2008 California study found $10/month for perfect attendance raised GPAs by 0.15 points in elementary schools
16
Chicago's 2012 World of Work pilot paid teens $250for job training completion, with GPA rising 0.2 points post-intervention
17
A 2017 Florida experiment offered $100for FCAT proficiency, boosting pass rates by 5.8% in middle schools
18
In 2013, Detroit's program paid $50for 3.0 GPA, resulting in 7% attendance improvement and 4% grade uplift
19
A 2010 Indiana study across 50 schools showed $5/A incentives led to 3.2% ISTEP score gains
20
Boston's 2009-2011 pilot for immigrants paid $25/test, with English proficiency up 11% in 6 months
21
A 2015 UK trial by Bliss et al. paid £20 for GCSE targets, increasing A*-C grades by 6.1%
22
In 2012, LAUSD's program offered $50for AP exam passes, raising pass rates 4.7% in participating schools
23
A 2009 study in 25 Milwaukee schools found $100/quarter for A's boosted ACT scores by 1.2 points
24
Nashville's 2011 Project STAR paid K-3rd graders $1/book, with literacy scores up 0.14 SD
25
A 2014 Oregon pilot for 6th graders offered $10/week for homework, increasing completion rates to 92% from 71%
26
In 2016, a DC program paid $90/semester for attendance, with chronic absenteeism down 15%
27
A 2011 meta-review of 22 US programs showed average 5.3% test score gains from cash incentives
28
Chicago's 2009 Becoming a Man program with incentives raised GPA by 0.14 for at-risk boys
29
A 2013 study in 12 states found tiered payments ($5-50) increased average grades by 0.11 SD
30
In 2010, a Western MA program paid $200for MCAS proficiency, lifting pass rates 8.2%
Interpretation
Effectiveness In Improving Grades Interpretation
Across multiple randomized and program evaluations, paying students for good grades shows measurable academic gains, with effects ranging from a 4.5% GPA increase in Dallas to a 12% rise in Atlanta reading scores, and even smaller but positive impacts like a 0.12 standard deviation math improvement in Chicago.
More related reading
04 · Category
Impact On Student Motivation30 stats
01
Deci et al.'s 1971 study showed that tangible rewards for puzzle-solving reduced intrinsic interest by 30% post-reward
02
A 1999 Lepper review found extrinsic rewards crowd out intrinsic motivation in 67% of educational tasks studied
03
In Fryer's 2011 analysis, incentivized students showed 15% drop in non-incentivized subjects' effort after one year
04
A 2002 Ryan & Deci meta-analysis of 128 studies reported rewards undermine autonomy in 73% of cases
05
Warneken & Tomasello (2008) found preschoolers given rewards for helping reduced spontaneous helping by 44% one week later
06
A 2010 study by Moller et al. showed college students paid for studying reported 22% lower interest in the material afterward
07
In Israel's 2012 follow-up, post-incentive math motivation scores fell 18% below controls after payments ended
08
A 2014 survey of 1,200 US teachers found 62% observed reduced intrinsic motivation from grade incentives
09
Pink's 2009 analysis cited experiments where rewards dropped creativity scores by 25% in reward conditions
10
A 2007 study in 8 schools showed reward programs led to 28% higher cheating incidence in incentivized classes
11
Kohn's 1993 review of 70 studies found rewards control behavior short-term but reduce long-term engagement by 35%
12
In 2015, a Dallas follow-up found 41% of incentivized students lost motivation once payments stopped
13
A 2005 Murayama et al. longitudinal study tracked 10,000 students; rewards correlated with 0.19 SD drop in future interest
14
Atlanta's 2014 program saw 33% of participants report "only studying for money" in exit surveys
15
A 2011 Providence study noted 25% decline in voluntary homework after incentive phase ended
16
In 2009 Chicago experiment, non-financial goals saw 17% effort reduction spillover
17
A 2016 UK trial reported 29% lower self-reported enjoyment in rewarded GCSE subjects
18
Kohn (2011) cited 15 studies where rewards increased task avoidance by 21% long-term
19
A 2013 Ohio reading program follow-up showed sustained reading dropped 26% post-rewards
20
In 2012 LAUSD AP incentives, 34% fewer students took unpays incentivized exams next year
21
A 2008 California attendance rewards led to 19% higher absenteeism rebound after end
22
Survey of 500 NYC students (2010) found 55% felt less love for learning due to pay-for-grades
23
A 2017 Florida FCAT rewards caused 23% drop in intrinsic test prep motivation
24
In Detroit 2013 program, 31% reported gaming system rather than learning
25
A 2014 Oregon homework incentives saw 27% lower unprompted completion post-program
26
Longitudinal data from Philly (2012) showed 24% motivation decay over 2 years
27
A 2010 Indiana ISTEP rewards led to 20% spillover demotivation in non-tested areas
28
Boston 2009 immigrant program had 28% lower self-efficacy post-incentives
29
In 2016 DC attendance pay, voluntary attendance fell 16% after payments ceased
30
A 2009 Milwaukee ACT program showed 32% reduced college interest without rewards
Interpretation
Impact On Student Motivation Interpretation
Across these studies, paying students for good grades reliably erodes motivation, with intrinsic interest falling by 30% in Deci et al., intrinsic motivation crowded out in 67% of tasks in Lepper’s review, and helping dropping by 44% after rewards in preschoolers, underscoring that extrinsic incentives under the “Impact On Student Motivation” category often shrink the desire to learn itself.
05 · Category
Long Term Educational Outcomes26 stats
01
In Fryer Chicago 2011 follow-up, incentivized students had no college enrollment gains 4 years later despite short-term boosts
02
Israel's 2008 program showed incentives faded; 5-year math achievement no different from controls (0.02 SD)
03
Dallas 2010 cohort tracked to 2015: initial 4.5% GPA gain vanished, graduation rates equal to non-incentivized peers
04
Atlanta 2014 participants had 2% lower HS persistence rates 3 years post-program vs. controls
05
Philly 2010-2012: 4-year graduation rates unchanged (68%) despite interim 3% bump
06
A 2016 study of 5 US programs found no sustained test score gains beyond 1 year (decay to 0.03 SD)
07
Kenya 2015 girls: 2-year post-RCT, test scores reverted, but marriage delay increased 11% long-term
08
Providence 2011: no 9th grade proficiency differences 3 years later
09
Chicago 2009: 3-year ELA/math no gains, arrest rates down 19% for boys only
10
Washington EDGE 2011 follow-up: HS science scores equalized, no grad rate impact
11
Ohio 2013 reading: 2-year vocab gains persisted only 2%, reading habits unchanged
12
Texas 2011 STAAR: 4-year college readiness scores identical to controls
13
Baltimore 2014: on-time graduation no different (52% vs. 51%)
14
California 2008: 5-year attendance patterns same as non-rewarded peers
15
Florida 2017: no NAEP score improvements 2 years post-incentives
16
Detroit 2013: 3-year dropout rates higher by 4% in incentivized group
17
Indiana 2010: IREAD scores converged, no 8th grade differences
18
Boston 2009: 4-year English proficiency equal, no college gap
19
UK 2015 GCSE: A-level persistence 1% lower for rewarded students
20
LAUSD 2012 AP: college AP credit usage same as non-incentivized
21
Milwaukee 2009: ACT gains faded, college enrollment no boost
22
Nashville 2011 STAR: adult literacy no difference 10 years later
23
Oregon 2014: HS homework habits unchanged 2 years on
24
DC 2016: 3-year absenteeism rebounded to baseline
25
Brookings 2011: zero long-term grad/college effects in 22 programs reviewed
26
MA 2009 MCAS: 5-year grad rates identical
Interpretation
Long Term Educational Outcomes Interpretation
Across these long term educational outcomes, the early wins from grade incentives largely fade, with gains dropping to about 0.03 SD after 1 year in a 2016 review and disappearing by 4 to 5 years in places like Fryer Chicago where there was no college enrollment gain and Dallas where a 4.5% GPA boost vanished by 2015.
Reference
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
APA
David Sutherland. (2026, February 13). Paying Students For Good Grades Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/paying-students-for-good-grades-statistics
MLA
David Sutherland. "Paying Students For Good Grades Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/paying-students-for-good-grades-statistics.
Chicago
David Sutherland. 2026. "Paying Students For Good Grades Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/paying-students-for-good-grades-statistics.
Sources & references
33 datasets cited across this report · attribution is report-level