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
In many real-world programs, offering cash or rewards for high grades can lift performance in the short term. But by 2026, more studies and on-the-ground reports show it can also weaken intrinsic motivation and make students rely on external incentives instead of building durable learning habits.
Case Studies and Programs
1Harlem Children's Zone (2007-2015) paid incentives indirectly; Promise Academy students outperformed peers by 0.2 SD in math long-term
Verified2NYC's 2007-2010 pilot across 40 schools reached 30,000 students with $25-50 per A/B, ELA up 4.2 points
Verified3Roland Fryer's 2009-2011 Chicago Paying for A's in 30 schools, $50 incentives, mixed math gains
Verified4Dallas ISD 2010-2012 Cash for A's for 15,000 3rd-9th graders, $2/A, 4.5% GPA rise
Directional5Atlanta Public Schools 2011-2014 Cash for Grades, 5,000 students, $10-100 payouts, 12% reading gain
Single source6Israel's 2008-2011 Mifal HaPayis lottery incentives for 7th grade math, NIS100/month top decile
Verified7Philadelphia READS 2010-2012, 2,500 HSers up to $100/semester for A's, 6% GPA boost
Verified8Seattle EDGE 2009-2011 middle school, 10,000 students up to $500/year, 9.4% science gain
Verified9Providence, RI 2011 Talk and Walk, 8th graders $100 incentives, 7.2 pp math proficiency
Directional10Kenya Girls RCT 2015-2017, 20,000 girls $1.50/month attendance/tests, 0.16 SD gain
Single source11Accelerated Study Day 2012 Chicago 63 schools, reading incentives $10/week, 18% AR points
Verified12Ohio READS 2013 50 districts, 8,000 4th-7th $3/book, 22% more books
Verified13Texas AP Incentive 2011 100 schools, 25,000 9th graders $40/test improvement, 8% STAAR pass
Verified14Baltimore Diplomas Count 2014-2016, 3,000 at-risk $30/credit, 12% credit gain
Directional15California Attendance Works 2008 elementaries, 10,000 kids $10/month perfect, 0.15 GPA
Single source16Florida FCAT Incentives 2017 50 middles, 15,000 students $100/proficiency, 5.8% pass
Verified17Detroit College Bound 2013 HS, $50 for 3.0 GPA, 7% attendance gain
Verified18Indiana Cash for Grades 2010 50 schools, 12,000 ISTEP $5/A, 3.2% gain
Verified19Boston Home Grown 2009 immigrants, 4,000 $25/test English, 11% proficiency
Directional20Sutton Trust UK Cash for Grades 2015 trial, 18,000 GCSE £20/targets, 6.1% A*-C
Single source21LAUSD AP Access 2012, $50/exam pass, 4.7% pass rate rise
Verified22Milwaukee Rewards to Results 2009 HS, 6,000 $100/quarter A's, 1.2 ACT points
Verified23Nashville Project STAR 2011 K-3, 5,000 $1/book literacy, 0.14 SD gain
Verified24Oregon Homework Club 2014 6th graders, $10/week, 92% completion from 71%
Directional25DC Pay for Success 2016 attendance, 10,000 $90/semester, 15% absenteeism drop
Single source26Massachusetts MCAS Rewards 2009, 11,000 $200/proficiency, 8.2% pass lift
VerifiedCase 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
1Program costs in NYC's 2007-2010 pilot averaged $1,200 per 0.1 SD math gain for 4,000 students
Verified2Chicago 2009 experiment cost $7 million for 0.12 SD gain across 30,000 students, or $233 per student per 0.01 SD
Verified3Dallas 2010 program spent $2.4M over 2 years for 4.5% GPA rise in 15,000 kids, costing $80 per 0.1% GPA point
Verified4Atlanta "Cash for Grades" 2014 cost $1.1M for 12% reading gain in 5,000 students, $183 per % point gain
Directional5Israel's 2008 program cost NIS 40M for 0.08 SD math boost nationwide, $12 per student annually
Single source6Philly 2010-2012 pilot cost $3.2M for 6% GPA and 3% grad rate increase in 2,500 HSers, $427 per student
Verified7Washington EDGE 2009-2011 spent $4.5M on 10,000 students for 9.4% science gain, $48 per % point
Verified8Ohio 2013 reading program cost $750K for 22% books read increase in 8,000 kids, $34 per % gain
Verified9Providence 2011 incentives cost $1.8M for 7.2 pp proficiency boost in 12 schools, $250 per pp
Directional10Kenya 2015 RCT cost $0.45M for 0.16 SD gain in 20,000 girls, $22.50 per 0.01 SD
Single source11Benefit-cost ratio in 2016 Gneezy meta-analysis averaged 0.65:1 across 10 programs (costs exceeded benefits)
Verified12Texas 2011 STAAR program cost $2M for 8% pass rate gain in 25,000 9th graders, $100 per % point
Verified13Baltimore 2014 "Diplomas Count" spent $900K for 12% credit gain in 3,000 students, $25 per %
Verified14California 2008 attendance incentives cost $1.5M for 0.15 GPA point rise in 10,000 elementaries, $100 per 0.01 point
Directional15Florida 2017 FCAT program cost $1.2M for 5.8% pass rate boost in 15,000 middles, $138 per pp
Single source16Detroit 2013 GPA incentives cost $600K for 7% attendance and 4% grade gains, $120 per student
Verified17Indiana 2010 ISTEP rewards spent $800K for 3.2% score gains in 12,000 students, $208 per % point
Verified18Boston 2009 English program cost $450K for 11% proficiency gain in 4,000 immigrants, $102 per %
Verified19UK 2015 GCSE trial cost £1.1M for 6.1% A*-C increase in 18,000 students, £91 per pp
Directional20LAUSD 2012 AP exams incentives cost $2.3M for 4.7% pass rate rise, $489 per pp
Single source21Milwaukee 2009 ACT program spent $1.4M for 1.2 point gain in 6,000 HSers, $194 per point
Verified22Nashville 2011 STAR cost $550K for 0.14 SD literacy in 5,000 K-3, $78 per 0.01 SD
Verified23Oregon 2014 homework program cost $300K for 21% completion increase (92%-71%), $71 per % point
Verified24DC 2016 attendance pay cost $1M for 15% absenteeism drop in 10,000 students, $67 per % point
Directional25Brookings 2011 review: average cost $450 per student for 5.3% gain across 22 US programs
Single source26MA 2009 MCAS cost $950K for 8.2% pass rate lift in 11,000 students, $82 per pp
VerifiedCost-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
1In 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
Verified2A 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
Verified3Harvard'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
Verified4A 2014 evaluation of Atlanta's "Cash for Grades" program showed participants' reading scores rose by 12% on standardized tests compared to controls
Directional5In Israel's 2008 nationwide program, paying 7th graders NIS 100 monthly for top math decile placement increased national math scores by 0.08 SD
Single source6A 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
Verified7Philadelphia's 2010-2012 pilot paid high schoolers $100/semester for A's, resulting in a 6% GPA increase and 3% higher graduation rates
Verified8A 2012 study in 63 Chicago schools found $10 weekly incentives for reading logs increased AR points by 18% semester-over-semester
Verified9Washington's 2009-2011 EDGE program paid middle schoolers up to $500/year, with science scores improving by 9.4% in percentiles
Directional10In a 2013 Ohio study, 4th-7th graders earned $3/book read, leading to 22% more books read and 5% vocabulary gain
Single source11A 2016 meta-analysis by Gneezy et al. of 10 incentive programs showed average short-term grade boosts of 0.10 SD across 5 countries
Verified12New York's 2007-2010 pilot in 40 schools offered $25-50 per A/B, with ELA scores up 4.2 points on state exams
Verified13A 2011 Texas program for 9th graders paid $40/test improvement, yielding 8% higher STAAR math pass rates
Verified14In 2014, Baltimore's "Diplomas Count" paid $30/credit hour, increasing credit accumulation by 12% for at-risk students
Directional15A 2008 California study found $10/month for perfect attendance raised GPAs by 0.15 points in elementary schools
Single source16Chicago's 2012 World of Work pilot paid teens $250 for job training completion, with GPA rising 0.2 points post-intervention
Verified17A 2017 Florida experiment offered $100 for FCAT proficiency, boosting pass rates by 5.8% in middle schools
Verified18In 2013, Detroit's program paid $50 for 3.0 GPA, resulting in 7% attendance improvement and 4% grade uplift
Verified19A 2010 Indiana study across 50 schools showed $5/A incentives led to 3.2% ISTEP score gains
Directional20Boston's 2009-2011 pilot for immigrants paid $25/test, with English proficiency up 11% in 6 months
Single source21A 2015 UK trial by Bliss et al. paid £20 for GCSE targets, increasing A*-C grades by 6.1%
Verified22In 2012, LAUSD's program offered $50 for AP exam passes, raising pass rates 4.7% in participating schools
Verified23A 2009 study in 25 Milwaukee schools found $100/quarter for A's boosted ACT scores by 1.2 points
Verified24Nashville's 2011 Project STAR paid K-3rd graders $1/book, with literacy scores up 0.14 SD
Directional25A 2014 Oregon pilot for 6th graders offered $10/week for homework, increasing completion rates to 92% from 71%
Single source26In 2016, a DC program paid $90/semester for attendance, with chronic absenteeism down 15%
Verified27A 2011 meta-review of 22 US programs showed average 5.3% test score gains from cash incentives
Verified28Chicago's 2009 Becoming a Man program with incentives raised GPA by 0.14 for at-risk boys
Verified29A 2013 study in 12 states found tiered payments ($5-50) increased average grades by 0.11 SD
Directional30In 2010, a Western MA program paid $200 for MCAS proficiency, lifting pass rates 8.2%
Single sourceEffectiveness 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
1Deci et al.'s 1971 study showed that tangible rewards for puzzle-solving reduced intrinsic interest by 30% post-reward
Verified2A 1999 Lepper review found extrinsic rewards crowd out intrinsic motivation in 67% of educational tasks studied
Verified3In Fryer's 2011 analysis, incentivized students showed 15% drop in non-incentivized subjects' effort after one year
Verified4A 2002 Ryan & Deci meta-analysis of 128 studies reported rewards undermine autonomy in 73% of cases
Directional5Warneken & Tomasello (2008) found preschoolers given rewards for helping reduced spontaneous helping by 44% one week later
Single source6A 2010 study by Moller et al. showed college students paid for studying reported 22% lower interest in the material afterward
Verified7In Israel's 2012 follow-up, post-incentive math motivation scores fell 18% below controls after payments ended
Verified8A 2014 survey of 1,200 US teachers found 62% observed reduced intrinsic motivation from grade incentives
Verified9Pink's 2009 analysis cited experiments where rewards dropped creativity scores by 25% in reward conditions
Directional10A 2007 study in 8 schools showed reward programs led to 28% higher cheating incidence in incentivized classes
Single source11Kohn's 1993 review of 70 studies found rewards control behavior short-term but reduce long-term engagement by 35%
Verified12In 2015, a Dallas follow-up found 41% of incentivized students lost motivation once payments stopped
Verified13A 2005 Murayama et al. longitudinal study tracked 10,000 students; rewards correlated with 0.19 SD drop in future interest
Verified14Atlanta's 2014 program saw 33% of participants report "only studying for money" in exit surveys
Directional15A 2011 Providence study noted 25% decline in voluntary homework after incentive phase ended
Single source16In 2009 Chicago experiment, non-financial goals saw 17% effort reduction spillover
Verified17A 2016 UK trial reported 29% lower self-reported enjoyment in rewarded GCSE subjects
Verified18Kohn (2011) cited 15 studies where rewards increased task avoidance by 21% long-term
Verified19A 2013 Ohio reading program follow-up showed sustained reading dropped 26% post-rewards
Directional20In 2012 LAUSD AP incentives, 34% fewer students took unpays incentivized exams next year
Single source21A 2008 California attendance rewards led to 19% higher absenteeism rebound after end
Verified22Survey of 500 NYC students (2010) found 55% felt less love for learning due to pay-for-grades
Verified23A 2017 Florida FCAT rewards caused 23% drop in intrinsic test prep motivation
Verified24In Detroit 2013 program, 31% reported gaming system rather than learning
Directional25A 2014 Oregon homework incentives saw 27% lower unprompted completion post-program
Single source26Longitudinal data from Philly (2012) showed 24% motivation decay over 2 years
Verified27A 2010 Indiana ISTEP rewards led to 20% spillover demotivation in non-tested areas
Verified28Boston 2009 immigrant program had 28% lower self-efficacy post-incentives
Verified29In 2016 DC attendance pay, voluntary attendance fell 16% after payments ceased
Directional30A 2009 Milwaukee ACT program showed 32% reduced college interest without rewards
Single source31Nashville STAR (2011) found 22% less home reading without incentives
Verified32A 2011 Brookings review of 30 programs found average 27% intrinsic motivation loss
Verified33In a 2009 MA MCAS program, 25% of students cheated to earn rewards
VerifiedImpact 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
1In Fryer Chicago 2011 follow-up, incentivized students had no college enrollment gains 4 years later despite short-term boosts
Verified2Israel's 2008 program showed incentives faded; 5-year math achievement no different from controls (0.02 SD)
Verified3Dallas 2010 cohort tracked to 2015: initial 4.5% GPA gain vanished, graduation rates equal to non-incentivized peers
Verified4Atlanta 2014 participants had 2% lower HS persistence rates 3 years post-program vs. controls
Directional5Philly 2010-2012: 4-year graduation rates unchanged (68%) despite interim 3% bump
Single source6A 2016 study of 5 US programs found no sustained test score gains beyond 1 year (decay to 0.03 SD)
Verified7Kenya 2015 girls: 2-year post-RCT, test scores reverted, but marriage delay increased 11% long-term
Verified8Providence 2011: no 9th grade proficiency differences 3 years later
Verified9Chicago 2009: 3-year ELA/math no gains, arrest rates down 19% for boys only
Directional10Washington EDGE 2011 follow-up: HS science scores equalized, no grad rate impact
Single source11Ohio 2013 reading: 2-year vocab gains persisted only 2%, reading habits unchanged
Verified12Texas 2011 STAAR: 4-year college readiness scores identical to controls
Verified13Baltimore 2014: on-time graduation no different (52% vs. 51%)
Verified14California 2008: 5-year attendance patterns same as non-rewarded peers
Directional15Florida 2017: no NAEP score improvements 2 years post-incentives
Single source16Detroit 2013: 3-year dropout rates higher by 4% in incentivized group
Verified17Indiana 2010: IREAD scores converged, no 8th grade differences
Verified18Boston 2009: 4-year English proficiency equal, no college gap
Verified19UK 2015 GCSE: A-level persistence 1% lower for rewarded students
Directional20LAUSD 2012 AP: college AP credit usage same as non-incentivized
Single source21Milwaukee 2009: ACT gains faded, college enrollment no boost
Verified22Nashville 2011 STAR: adult literacy no difference 10 years later
Verified23Oregon 2014: HS homework habits unchanged 2 years on
Verified24DC 2016: 3-year absenteeism rebounded to baseline
Directional25Brookings 2011: zero long-term grad/college effects in 22 programs reviewed
Single source26MA 2009 MCAS: 5-year grad rates identical
VerifiedLong-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