What We Know About Incentives in Education

“My child does fairly well in school, but they could do so much better if they tried harder.”

It’s no secret that some students coast through their K-12 experience without ever breaking an intellectual sweat. B-minuses roll in despite plenty of A potential, and opportunities are (sadly) missed.

The adult world has a widely accepted way of addressing this motivational issue: incentives. Reward the output you desire, and you’ll see more of it. This is true of sales commissions, quarterly bonuses, and raises and promotions. 

It’s only natural, then, that the idea of rewarding the educational achievements of children has been around for generations—and it has been controversial for just as long. Naysayers argue that incentives are bribery, and that they rob children of the joy of learning. One common argument is that while the frequency of the desired behavior will increase in the short term, when the incentive is withdrawn, children will engage even less than they did before the incentive was initiated. Famed education author Alfie Kohn claims to have evidence that people trying to earn a reward do a poorer job than those who aren’t.

Others argue that extrinsic motivation often leads to intrinsic inspiration—even after the incentive is taken away. A study of Pizza Hut’s “Book It” program found that personal pan pizzas served as a meaningful foundation for a future love of reading. So—if incentives can be effective, why not use them?

Inputs and outputs

The debate continues, and isolated household experiments do as well. But empirical research on large incentive programs with varying structures have been conducted, and the results are worth a deeper dive.

A 2011 Harvard University study involving more than 200 schools was set up across multiple U.S. cities, with each incentive program designed a little differently. Some of the programs incentivized academic outputs (grades and test scores), while others focused on inputs (attendance, behavior, and reading books). 

In Chicago, students were rewarded with $50 for each A on their report card, $35 for each B, and $20 for Cs, with no reward for Ds or failing grades. In New York, students were offered a small stipend ($5 or $10) for completing a standardized test, and more money ($25 or $30) for a perfect score. In the end, these output programs were a bust. Despite some students earning well over $1,000, the results showed a statistical impact of zero. Some incentivized students actually scored worse than those in the control group.

Input programs, however, demonstrated marked success. Students in Washington, D.C. and Houston earned as much as $10 per day to attend class, wear a uniform, and complete assignments. In Dallas, if participating students could pass a brief quiz to prove they read a given book (over 80,000 to choose from), they were rewarded with $2.00. All three programs produced statistically significant results, with the program in Dallas standing out. Researchers concluded that, “Paying students to read books yields large and statistically significant increases in reading comprehension.” 

All five incentive programs spent significant money, but only the three input-based programs were successful. And it’s not that the output-based programs were less enticing to students—when output program students were asked if they planned to earn money and get their grades up, the answers were almost unanimously “Yes.” But when these same students were asked how they planned to achieve the results, answers ranged from, “I’ll try harder,” to, “I’m going to focus.” Not a single student responded with something tangible, such as, “I’ll go to the library after school every Tuesday and Thursday for two hours,” or “I’ll sit in the front of every class,” or “I’ll ask my teachers for help after school.” In other words, outputs were out of students’ control.

With the programs that did work, the incentivized activities—punctuality, wearing a uniform, homework completion—were inputs wholly within the students’ control. And that is why these programs were successful. When a student feels full control and ownership of an actionable goal, they are significantly more likely to see it as achievable and to continue to take steps toward achieving it. 

Incentive dos and don’ts

Whether you’re a wealthy philanthropist looking to make an impact or you’re a devoted parent trying to excite her sluggish child, incentives in education can make a difference. It is possible, however, to waste valuable time and resources by structuring them improperly. Here are a few dos and don’ts for education incentives:

• DO place the incentive on inputs, particularly for younger children. Inputs include:

  • Homework completion

  • School attendance

• DO think carefully about which behaviors are incentivized. Complex rules can be confusing, for example. Children will also focus on achieving the reward—often at the expense of everything else.

• DO NOT place the incentive on outputs. Students don’t directly control them and are often unaware of how to attain them. Focus on inputs, and outputs will follow.

• DO NOT put all your eggs in one basket. Well-structured incentives can make a positive difference, but they aren’t an educational silver bullet.

Also remember that incentives don’t have to be formal or financial to be felt by a young learner. The simple act of verbally praising a child or providing a “variable reward”—an unexpected trip to the ice cream parlor or an impromptu evening with a learner’s favorite meal or movie—recognizing a child’s effort or diligence can help to reinforce a positive behavior. 

A career educator, Sean Galvin holds a PhD in education from Eastern Michigan University and a Master's in education from the University of Michigan. Currently a middle school teacher for Battle Creek Public Schools, he has taught and run student mentorship and enrichment programs at both the high school and middle school levels. His dissertation covers the role of mentorship and student incentives in driving learning outcomes.