Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Gadfly Podcast
      • Flypaper Blog
      • Events
    • Covid-19
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
    • Our Work in Dayton
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Policy
    • High Expectations
    • Quality Choices
    • Personalized Pathways
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
    • Events
  • COVID-19
  • Scholars Program
Flypaper

The nudge: Financial incentives and educational effort

Amber M. Northern, Ph.D. Jeff Murray
4.22.2020
Getty Images/nirat

The evidence is mixed on whether we can motivate students to work harder by offering them financial incentives. California instituted a program as part of a group of demonstration projects across the country to determine if performance-based scholarships could be used to boost the quality and quantity of high school seniors’ academic effort. A recent study published in the journal Education Finance and Policy examines whether larger and longer scholarship payments impact how students choose to spend their time after they are enrolled in college.

Analysts Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Elena Rouse use data from the California Performance-Based Scholarship Demonstration (PBS) program. Participation in the program was not based on merit. The only requirements were that eligible students had to be high school seniors, meet the low-income eligibility standards, attend a Cash for College workshop where they got help with their FAFSA, submit their FAFSA to the federal government, and sign a consent form. Students completing these requirements were randomly assigned to multiple treatment groups with scholarships of differing durations and/or sizes, as well as a non-PBS condition (control group). Specifically, the scholarship incentive varied in length from one to four semesters and in size from $1,000 to $4,000. Additionally, some scholarship incentives included a performance requirement (students had to earn a grade of C or better in at least six credits). Treatment students received their scholarship directly while they were still seniors while the scholarships for control-group students were awarded directly to their colleges after enrollment ($1,000). Participants also completed surveys about a bunch of academic and non-academic questions like how they spent their time, how they were motivated to learn or not, and what they thought of their academic abilities.

The key finding is the treatment group was 5.2 percentage points more likely than the control group to enroll at a post-secondary institution. Survey responses also show that members of the treatment group were 7.3 percentage points more likely to report having been prepared for class in the last seven days, 6.7 percentage points more likely to have attended all of their classes in the last week, and reported studying about eight minutes more per day than members of the control group. The early financial incentives induced students to devote more time and effort to educational activities, and they self-reported spending less time on leisure activities (or “nights out for fun”).

Analysts also find that the scholarship program primarily affects behavior in the semester(s) in which the student is eligible for the funds. Incentives do not generate impacts after eligibility ends, nor do they increase students’ reported interest or enjoyment in learning. But there are also no negative impacts once the incentive is removed, nor is there lasting change in behavior as a result of prior eligibility for the scholarship. The data also provide some evidence that students whose incentives included a performance component (i.e., maintaining a C) were more motivated by that goal than they would be by a simple monetary award with no strings attached. Moreover, another study using the same data by MDRC tracked the students for longer and found that treatment students were more likely to matriculate, and that these gains were largely concentrated in community colleges and for students with lower high school GPAs.

Is such an incentive program a worthy use of scarce public funds? This study reveals that the timing and strings attached to the incentive matter. Analysts found that larger incentive amounts did not generate larger increases in effort. Perhaps that’s because the differences between lower and higher amounts were not sizeable enough to generate additional effort, but it is equally likely that it just doesn’t take much to encourage students to put in more effort. A reasonably-priced incentive such as this one—timed just as students are seeing the light at the end of the high school tunnel—could make a noticeable difference.

SOURCE: Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Elena Rouse, “Financial Incentives and Educational Investment: The Impact of Performance-Based Scholarships on Student Time Use,” Education Finance and Policy (September 2018).

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
School Finance

Amber Northern is senior vice president for research at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where she supervises the Institute’s studies and research staff.  She has published in the areas of educational accountability, principal leadership, teacher quality, and academic standards, among others. Prior to joining Fordham, she served as senior study director at Westat. In that role, she provided evaluation services…

View Full Bio

Jeff Murray is a lifelong resident of central Ohio. He previously worked at School Choice Ohio and the Greater Columbus Arts Council. He has two degrees from the Ohio State University. He lives in the Clintonville neighborhood with his wife and twin daughters. He is proud every day to support the Fordham mission to help make excellent education options more numerous and more readily available for families and…

View Full Bio

Sign Up to Receive Fordham Updates

We'll send you quality research, commentary, analysis, and news on the education issues you care about.
Thank you for signing up!
Please check your email to confirm the subscription.

Related Content

view
Budget tackles transportation blog image
School Choice

Budget bill tackles transportation for choice students

Jessica Poiner 3.5.2021
OhioOhio Gadfly Daily
view
Ohio charter news logo
School Choice

Ohio Charter News Weekly – 3.5.21

Chad L. Aldis, Jeff Murray 3.5.2021
OhioOhio Gadfly Daily
view
Gadfly Bites
School Funding

Gadfly Bites 3/5/21 – Reconfigure failed waiting to retry

Jeff Murray 3.5.2021
OhioOhio Gadfly Daily
Fordham Logo

© 2020 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

1016 16th St NW, 8th Floor 
Washington, DC 20036

202.223.5452

[email protected]

  • <
Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]