Getting Better Outcomes: Why 4Ps Should Target Educators, Not Just Students

For decades, conditional cash transfers (CCTs) like the Philippines 4Ps program have been a instrumental in keeping students enrolled in classes. These programs, which provide financial incentives to families conditional on school attendance or performance, have boosted enrollment rates and kept vulnerable children in classrooms. But as global learning crises persist — evidenced by stagnant test scores and widening equity gaps — it’s time to ask: Are we getting the right returns from such investments?

Emerging research suggests that redirecting CCTs to motivate educators, rather than solely students, could yield transformative results. Here’s why policymakers should consider this paradigm shift.

The Limits of Student-Focused CCTs
CCTs for households have undeniably improved access to education. Meta-analyses of 47 programs across low- and middle-income countries confirm their success in raising enrollment and attendance, particularly at the secondary level . Yet these gains often fail to translate into better learning outcomes. For example, Brazil’s “Bolsa Família” increased school participation but showed no significant impact on literacy rates . Similarly, while CCTs reduce dropout rates, their effect on academic achievement is inconsistent, as many programs overlook systemic barriers like teacher quality and classroom resources. In the Philippines, graduation rates have actually dropped over the years.

In short, CCTs address symptoms, not root causes. Without motivated, skilled teachers, even the most diligent students struggle to thrive.

The Case for Educator-Targeted CCTs

Shifting incentives to educators could address two critical challenges: teacher retention and instructional quality. Here’s how:

1. Tackling Teacher Shortages in Underserved Areas
Globally, rural and low-income schools face chronic teacher shortages. Career-change teachers (CCTs) — professionals transitioning into education from other fields — often fill these gaps but face steep challenges. Studies show that midcareer entrants struggle to reconcile their prior identities with teaching roles, leading to high attrition rates .

Conditional cash transfers for educators could incentivize retention. For instance:
- Rural retention bonuses: Payments tied to multiyear commitments in underserved schools.
- Professional development stipends: Rewards for completing training in trauma-informed pedagogy or STEM instruction .

China’s rural teacher subsidies, though not formal CCTs, demonstrate this potential. By offering financial incentives, the country reduced urban-rural teacher gaps and improved student retention .

2. Enhancing Instructional Innovation
Career-change teachers bring diverse skills — from engineering to entrepreneurship — that can revitalize classrooms. However, rigid school systems often stifle their creativity. One teacher lamented: Skills from my previous career are seen as irrelevant here. It limits what I can offer” .

Educator-focused CCTs could reward innovation. For example:
- “Out-of-the-box” teaching grants: Incentives for integrating real-world expertise into lesson plans.
- Peer leadership bonuses: Payments for mentoring early-career teachers or leading curriculum reforms .

Such programs align with evidence that teacher identity development — a sense of purpose and autonomy — is key to job satisfaction and effectiveness .

Designing Effective Educator Incentives
To maximize impact, educator CCTs must avoid the pitfalls of past programs:

1. Balance Inputs and Outcomes: Tie payments to both measurable goals (e.g., student attendance) and professional growth (e.g., training completion) .
2. Target Equity Gaps: Prioritize incentives for schools in marginalized regions.
3. Foster Collaboration: Pair CCTs with systemic reforms, such as smaller class sizes or technology upgrades .

The ADB and other institutions have long invested in student-focused CCTs. Yet as the 2024 NBER meta-analysis notes, “programs that ignore teacher motivation risk diminishing returns”. Redirecting even a fraction of CCT funding toward educators could:
- Stabilize staffing in crisis-hit schools.
- Empower teachers to innovate.
- Break the cycle of *schooling without learning*.

Education systems cannot thrive on access alone. By investing in educators — the architects of learning — we can build classrooms where every student succeeds. Let’s reimagine CCTs as tools not just for enrollment, but for excellence.

For further reading, explore the NBER’s meta-analysis on CCTs and MDPI’s study on career-change teachers .