New Teachers and the Massachusetts Signing Bonus: The Limits of Inducements

Abstract

In 1998, Massachusetts instituted a $20,000 Signing Bonus to address concerns about the supply of quality teachers. This article reports on a longitudinal, qualitative study of the experiences of 13 of the original 59 recipients of the Signing Bonus, and analyzes their responses to various incentives embedded within the Massachusetts Signing Bonus Program (MSBP). Interviews revealed that the bonus money had very little influence on recipients’ decisions to enter teaching. Far more important was the alternate certification program created to implement the policy. Findings suggest that the MSBP: (a) relied too much on inducements and not enough on capacity-building; (b) focused too narrowly on recruitment and not enough on retention, and (c) centered too much on individuals and not enough on schools.

The Role and Effectiveness of the Haitian Diaspora in the Development of Haiti

“…The disadvantages of inducements as noted by Liu, Johnson & Peske (2004) is that "policies that rely on inducements face the challenge of getting the incentives right" (p. 220). Therefore, the difficult aspects of that challenge are the ability to set proper incentives, which require a certain knowledge of preferences, priorities, and capacities of a target audience (Liu, Johnson & Peske, 2004).…”

“…In other words, the implementation of inducements is a central issue, since policymakers must know "how much variation they are willing to tolerate in the production of things of value, and how narrowly they are willing to prescribe how money is to be used and what is produced" (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987, p. 142). As Liu, Johnson & Peske (2004) note, "the lack of information about the feasibility of inducements, their effects, and the existence of capacity may lead to ineffective incentives" (p. 220).…”

“…Therefore, the difficult aspects of that challenge are the ability to set proper incentives, which require a certain knowledge of preferences, priorities, and capacities of a target audience (Liu, Johnson & Peske, 2004). Additionally, inducements assume that lack of money sometimes prevents individuals and organizations from producing something of value (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987).…”

“…As a policy instrument, Liu, Johnson & Peske (2004) note that, "inducements attempt to elicit the production of value in terms of goods, service, or a set of specified behaviors contrary to mandates that seek to elicit compliance and uniformity of behavior" (p. 230). In other words, incentives rely on money as a condition of performance while mandates rely on coercion to affect behavior (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987 Liu, Johnson & Peske (2004) note that "inducements focus on short-term and more tangible outcomes, and as a result, they are easier to enact politically than policies that aim at producing outcomes that take a long time to be realized" (p. 220). In short, inducements may foster more innovation and creativity when the capacities exist to produce goods and services that are allowed and supported by policymakers (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987;Liu, Johnson & Peske, 2004).…”

“…According to Liu, Johnson & Peske (2004), "incentives (or "inducements") have both advantages and disadvantages and their use reflects certain assumptions about problems and solutions" (p. 219). As a policy instrument, Liu, Johnson & Peske (2004) note that, "inducements attempt to elicit the production of value in terms of goods, service, or a set of specified behaviors contrary to mandates that seek to elicit compliance and uniformity of behavior" (p. 230).…”