I reported on this study below, which received null results from teacher performance pay in NYC back when it was first released last June, in connection w/ a conference at Harvard:
Subject: [Bulk] Another study showing payment for performance does not improve outcomes
So much for the group huddle
A new study from Columbia University featured in Education Next analyzes a recent New York City Department of Education (DOE) policy that tested whether merit pay for all teachers at an effective school could increase student achievement. The city's School-Wide Performance Bonus Program, launched in 2007 and endorsed by both the DOE and the teachers union, was implemented in a randomly selected subset of the city's most disadvantaged schools. Researchers examined data from the first two years of the bonus program, in which teachers received bonuses based on overall performance of all tested students in their school, rather than just in their own classrooms. According to proponents, this design can minimize conflict and foster cooperation among teachers. In fact, researchers found little effect overall, positive or negative. (Also, over the period examined, all schools experienced increases in student achievement on the New York state test that has since been determined too easy, which meant 90 percent of participating schools received a bonus in the second year.) Researchers found some evidence, however, that the program had a positive impact in smaller schools, an environment in which it may be easier for teachers to cooperate in pursuit of a common reward. The study leaves open the question of whether a bonus program that rewards teachers for their own specific effectiveness would be more successful.
See the report: http://educationnext.org/does-