Ajzenman, Nicolas; Elacqua, G ego y; Ku sche , Maca ena; Méndez, Ca olina;
Suá e, Sonia
Wo king Pape
The gi ing ad ice e ec : Reducing eache so ing h ough
sel -pe suasion
IDB Wo king Pape Se ies, No. IDB-WP-01689
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank (IDB), Washing on, DC
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Ajzenman, Nicolas; Elacqua, G ego y; Ku sche , Maca ena; Méndez, Ca olina;
Suá e, Sonia (2025) : The gi ing ad ice e ec : Reducing eache so ing h ough sel -pe suasion,
IDB Wo king Pape Se ies, No. IDB-WP-01689, In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank (IDB),
Washing on, DC,
h ps://doi.o g/10.18235/0013442
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/315945
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
The Gi ing Ad ice E ec : Reducing Teache
So ing
Th ough Sel -Pe suasion
Nicolas Ajzenman
G ego y Elacqua
Maca ena Ku sche
Ca olina Méndez
Sonia Suá ez‖
WORKING PAPER No IDB-WP-01689
In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank
Educa ion Di ision
Feb ua y 2025
The Gi ing Ad ice E ec : Reducing Teache
So ing Th ough Sel -Pe suasion
Nicolas Ajzenman
G ego y Elacqua
Maca ena Ku sche
Ca olina Méndez
Sonia Suá ez
In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank
Educa ion Di ision
Feb ua y 2025
Ca aloging-in-Publica ion da a p o ided by he
In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank
Felipe He e a Lib a y
The Gi ing Ad ice E ec : Reducing Teache So ing Th ough Sel -
Pe suasion / Nicolas Ajzenman, G ego y Elacqua, Maca ena Ku sche ,
Ca olina Mendez, Sonia Sua ez.
p. cm. — (IDB Wo king Pape Se ies; 1689)
Includes bibliog aphical e e ences.
1. Teache ans e -Pe u. 2. Teache s-Selec ion and appoin men -Pe u. 3.
Teache s-Supply and demand-Pe u. 4. Economics-Psychological aspec s-
Pe u. I. Ajzenman, Nicolás. II. Elacqua, G ego y M., 1972- III. Ku sche ,
Maca ena. IV. Méndez, Ca olina. V. Sua ez Enciso, Sonia. VI. In e -Ame ican
De elopmen Bank. Educa ion Di ision. VII. Se ies.
IDB-WP-1689
Jel Codes: D91,I23, I25
Keywo ds: Teache s, eache policy, eache sho ages, beha io al, gi ing
ad ice
h p://www.iadb.o g
Copy igh © 2025 In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank ("IDB"). This wo k is subjec o a C ea i e
Commons license CC BY 3.0 IGO (h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/3.0/igo/legalcode). The
e ms and condi ions indica ed in he URL link mus be me and he espec i e ecogni ion mus be
g an ed o he IDB.
Fu he o sec ion 8 o he abo e license, any media ion ela ing o dispu es a ising unde such license
shall be conduc ed in acco dance wi h he WIPO Media ion Rules. Any dispu e ela ed o he use o he
wo ks o he IDB ha canno be se led amicably shall be submi ed o a bi a ion pu suan o he
Uni ed Na ions Commission on In e na ional T ade Law (UNCITRAL) ules. The use o he IDB's name
o any pu pose o he han o a ibu ion, and he use o IDB's logo shall be subjec o a sepa a e
w i en license ag eemen be ween he IDB and he use and is no au ho ized as pa o his license.
No e ha he URL link includes e ms and condi ions ha a e an in eg al pa o his license.
The opinions exp essed in his wo k a e hose o he au ho s and do no necessa ily e lec he iews o
he In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank, i s Boa d o Di ec o s, o he coun ies hey ep esen .
The Gi ing Ad ice E ec : Reducing
Teache So ing Th ough Sel -Pe suasion∗
Nicolas Ajzenman†G ego y Elacqua‡Maca ena Ku sche §
Ca olina M´endez Va gas¶Sonia Su´a ez‖
Feb ua y 13, 2025
Abs ac
This pape examines how he ac o gi ing ad ice o o he s can se e as a ool
o sel -pe suasion in high-s akes decisions. We es ed his hypo hesis in Pe u’s na-
ionwide eache selec ion p ocess, in ol ing o e 74,000 candida es. By p omp ing
eache s o ad ise pee s on selec ing schools o maximum educa ional impac , we
obse e a signi ican shi in hei own choices: an inc eased p obabili y o choosing
and being assigned o ha d- o-s a schools, ins i u ions se ing disad an aged a eas
ha a e ypically unde s a ed. In line wi h ecen li e a u e on beha io al sciences,
ou indings demons a e ha ad ising o he s can in luence one’s own consequen ial
decisions. This insigh o e s a cos -e ec i e app oach o mi iga ing eache so ing
and educing educa ional inequali y. I also co obo a es he alidi y o he gi ing
ad ice e ec in a high-s akes, eal-wo ld con ex using a la ge sample.
JEL classi ica ion: D91,I23, I25
Keywo ds: Teache s, eache policy, eache sho ages, beha io al, gi ing ad ice
∗T ial egis e ed wi h he numbe AEARCTR-0012373. Resea ch e iewed by he McGill Uni e si y
Resea ch E hics Boa d. We g a e ully acknowledge he In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank o unding
he esea ch p esen ed he ein. The opinions exp essed in his publica ion a e hose o he au ho s and do
no necessa ily e lec he iews o he In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank, i s Boa d o Di ec o s, o he
coun ies hey ep esen . The au ho s ha e no con lic s o in e es o inancial and ma e ial in e es s in
he esul s. All e o s a e ou own.
†McGill and IZA. E-mail: nicolas.a[email p o ec ed]
‡In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank. E-mail: g ego y[email p o ec ed]
§In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank. E-mail: [email p o ec ed]
¶In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank. E-mail: [email p o ec ed]
‖In e -Ame ican De elopmen Bank. E-mail: [email p o ec ed]
1
1 In oduc ion
A undamen al p inciple o public educa ion sys ems wo ldwide is ensu ing equal oppo -
uni ies o s uden s om di e se socioeconomic backg ounds. Howe e , many coun ies
ace a pe asi e challenge ha h ea ens his objec i e: he phenomenon known as eache
so ing (Jackson,2009;Lank o d e al.,2002;Boyd e al.,2013;Pop-Eleches and U quiola,
2013). This issue a ises when s uden s om low-income households a e mo e likely o a -
end unde s a ed schools wi h less quali ied eache s. Teache s play a c ucial ole in he
educa ion p ocess (Ri kin e al.,2005); hei in luence is ypically g ea e o s uden s om
ha d- o-s a backg ounds (A aujo e al.,2016). The sho age o high-quali y educa o s
in mo e ulne able a eas has se e e de imen al implica ions o equi y, as eache so ing
ends o exace ba e po en ial achie emen gaps (Sass e al.,2012;Thiemann,2018).
Wi h a ew ecen excep ions (Ajzenman e al.,2024a,b), policy esponses ha e p edom-
inan ly cen e ed on inc easing compensa ion o posi ions a unde s a ed schools o mo-
i a e eache s o include such ha d- o-s a schools among hei po en ial choices (E ans
and Mendez Acos a,2023). Al hough such measu es may in luence applican s’ decisions
in speci ic cases (Neilson e al.,2021;Puga ch and Sch oede ,2014), hey o en p o e ine -
ec i e (Glaze man e al.,2012;Rosa,2017) and a e gene ally associa ed wi h subs an ial
cos s.
In his pape , we p esen he esul s o an expe imen al assessmen o a na ionwide,
eal-wo ld, ze o-cos nudge o mi iga e eache so ing in he Pe u ian na ional public
school eache selec ion p ocess in 2022 (CPM 2022, o i s ac onym in Spanish), inspi ed
by a ecen insigh om he beha io al sciences li e a u e: he powe o ad ice-gi ing o
sel -mo i a ion (Esk eis-Winkle e al.,2019,2018). The in e en ion was ully imple-
men ed h ough he o icial eache job applica ion pla o m be o e applican s iewed he
lis o schools and acancies o applica ion. Ou in e en ion asked eache s in he ea -
men g oup applying o job acancies o ( olun a ily) ad ise a gene ic ellow applican
2
–a hypo he ical pee – abou which ypes o schools hey should choose i hey wished o
ha e he g ea es social impac on s uden s who needed hem mos . Teache s in he con-
ol g oup we e asked o ( olun a ily) answe wo neu al ques ions abou he applica ion
p ocess. To ule ou (o a enua e) po en ial p iming e ec s (Weinga en e al.,2016),
eache s in bo h he ea men and con ol g oups ini ially ecei ed a b ie explana ion
ha ou lined he di e en ypes o schools ha exis in Pe u ( o example, schools whe e
eache s could signi ican ly impac s uden lea ning o ecei e ca ee ad ancemen bene i s
o wo king in u al o emo e a eas). In addi ion, icons appea ed on he pla o m nex
o eligible schools, indica ing which ins i u ions o e ed eache bonuses o wo king in
disad an aged a eas (such as u al loca ions).
Assuming ha a conside able p opo ion o eache s ha e se ice-o ien ed o al u-
is ic mo i a ions –which seems easonable, as shown by ecen li e a u e in he egion
(Ajzenman e al.,2024a,b)–, he ad ice gi en in his con ex could wo k h ough se e al
channels. Fo ins ance, educing cogni i e dissonance (ad ising o apply o a ha d- o-s a
school while no doing so) o by p omp ing a conc e e plan o maximize social impac
(Roge s e al.,2015;Esk eis-Winkle e al.,2019).
We documen se e al esul s closely ollowing ou p e egis e ed plan, including a p e-
egis e ed he e ogenei y analysis by gende , based on p e ious esea ch by Ajzenman e
al. (2024a) and Be oni e al. (2023b) in he same con ex , showing ha emale candi-
da es ha e a disp opo ionally highe p e e ence o wo king in u ban and mo e accessible
schools. Focusing on ou main speci ica ion, he p opo ion o male eache candida es
who anked a ha d- o-s a school as hei op choice inc eased by 2.1 pe cen age poin s
(pp) (signi ican a 5%; con ol mean: 57%) while he e was no e ec o emale can-
dida es ( he di e ence be ween male and emale candida es is signi ican a 5%). The
p opo ion o male eache candida es ha anked a ha d- o-s a school as hei second
choice inc eased by 2.2 pp (signi ican a 5%; con ol mean: 57%) while he e was no e ec
3
o emale candida es ( he di e ence be ween male and emale candida es is signi ican a
5%). These e ec sizes align wi h p e ious indings in simila in e en ions. Ajzenman e
al. (2024a) ound ha male eache candida es’ likelihood o applying o disad an aged
schools inc eased be ween 3 and 3.4 pp, depending on he ou come. In a sepa a e in e en-
ion, Ajzenman e al. (2024b) ound ha p e e ences o ha d- o-s a schools inc eased by
1.4 o 5.2 pp, depending on he ou come. Al hough we canno ule ou o he channels, we
show e idence consis en wi h a oidance o cogni i e dissonance. We documen a s ong
co ela ion in he ea men g oup be ween he speci ic ype o school eache s ecommend
and he ype o school hey end up applying o as hei i s choice.
The p opo ion o ha d- o-s a schools lis ed in he male eache s’ choice se was 0.9
pp highe (signi ican a 10%; con ol mean: 62%), while he e was no e ec o emale
candida es ( he di e ence be ween male and emale candida es was nonsigni ican ). The
p obabili y o being o e ed a posi ion in a ha d- o-s a school inc eased by 1.5 pp o male
candida es (signi ican a 10%; con ol mean: 46%), while he e was no e ec o emale
candida es ( he di e ence be ween male and emale candida es was non signi ican ). The
di e ences ac oss gende s (and he ac ha he nudge was mos ly ine ec i e among emale
candida es) a e no su p ising and align wi h o he pape s showing he same pa e n in
he same con ex (Ajzenman e al.,2024a), plausibly explained by he ac ha ha d- o-
s a schools a e ela i ely a he away and emale candida es end o ha e less geog aphic
mobili y (see Ajzenman e al. (2024a) and Be oni e al. (2022)). To u he alida e hese
esul s, we use causal o es echniques wi h hones spli ing o examine he e ogeneous
ea men e ec s and iden i y eache s’ cha ac e is ics ha maximize he e ec o he
in e en ion (A hey and Imbens,2016,2017)). Consis en wi h ou manual es ima es o
he e ogeneous e ec s, ou analysis unco e s subs an ial he e ogenei y in ea men e ec s
bu only in e ms o gende .
We designed he in e en ion based on ecen insigh in beha io al economics and psy-
4
chology: he gi ing ad ice e ec . This e ec sugges s ha indi iduals who gi e ad ice
( a he han ecei e i ) a e mo e likely o make decisions ha align wi h hei own ec-
ommenda ions. In ou expe imen , we andomly assigned eache s o he ea men and
con ol g oups. Teache s in he ea men g oup we e asked o ecommend wha ypes
o schools hei colleagues should p io i ize i hey wan ed o maximize hei impac on
s uden s’ lea ning and explain hei ecommenda ions. Teache s in he con ol g oup an-
swe ed wo neu al ques ions. Following Esk eis-Winkle e al. (2019), we hypo hesized
ha p omp ing applican s o ac i ely hink abou and ad ise colleagues on how o max-
imize hei impac on s uden s would inc ease he likelihood o choosing a ha d- o-s a
school.
Ou pape con ibu es o a leas wo s ands o beha io al economics and educa ion
li e a u e. Fi s , i ex ends he esea ch on eache so ing and educa ional inequali y.
Ex ensi e li e a u e e eals ha s uden s om low-income backg ounds o wi h lowe
academic pe o mance end o be en olled in schools wi h less quali ied eache s (Boyd e
al.,2006;Die e le e al.,2015;Feng and Sass,2018;Lank o d e al.,2002;Jackson,2009;
Sass e al.,2012), which ad e sely a ec s hei educa ional ou comes (Aa onson e al.,
2007;Sass e al.,2012;Thiemann,2018). Resea ch on s a egies o mi iga e eache so ing
has p edominan ly ocused on mone a y incen i es, which, as e idenced by nume ous
s udies (Clo el e e al.,2008;Falch,2011;Glaze man e al.,2012;Sp inge e al.,2016;
Rosa,2017;Bueno and Sass,2018;Feng and Sass,2018;Elacqua e al.,2019), o en
yield only modes o non signi ican impac s on eache s’ p e e ences o ha d- o-s a
schools (Neilson e al. (2021) being a no ewo hy excep ion). In line wi h Ajzenman e al.
(2024a) and Ajzenman e al. (2024b), we con ibu e o his li e a u e by explo ing a no el
beha io al in e en ion o educe eache so ing a ze o cos .
Second, ou pape in e sec s wi h an expanding li e a u e on ad ice-gi ing. While
mos pape s in his li e a u e ocus on he e ec s o ecei ing ad ice as a way o d i ing
5
The objec i e was wo old: o in o m eache s abou he meaning o he icons and o
p ime all pa icipan s ( ea ed and con ol eache s) o hink abou ha d- o-s a and
emo e schools. These icons we e uni e sally displayed o all eache s, i espec i e o
hei ea men condi ion, as shown in Figu e A2. In ou sample, ha d- o-s a schools
we e designa ed by wo o hese h ee icons: one o mone a y bonuses and ano he o
accele a ed ca ee p og ession due o disad an aged condi ions. This a ises because ha d-
o-s a schools in egional a eas ecei e bo h bene i s, while he as majo i y o schools in
Lima and Callao do no . Howe e , o encou age eache s o apply o ce ain u ban schools,
he go e nmen needed a signaling mechanism, e en i hese schools did no ecei e any
bonus. Since, in heo y, eache s could po en ially apply o posi ions in Lima and Callao
unde speci ic excep ions, we used he same ini ial icon sc eens ac oss he coun y o
consis ency.
A e eache s passed he i s page, he sys em displayed wo olun a y ques ions.
Teache s in he ea men g oup we e asked o gi e ad ice o a hypo he ical colleague
who wan s o maximize hei impac on s uden s’ lea ning. The i s mul iple choice
ques ion speci ically asked wha ype o school hey would ecommend om a lis o
i e: Vulne able u ban, VRAEM, In e cul u al bilingual, Ru al, o Non- ulne able u ban.
In he open-ended ques ion eache s we e asked o jus i y hei answe . The i s ou
ca ego ies (Vulne able u ban, VRAEM, In e cul u al bilingual, Ru al) a e conside ed ha d-
o-s a and hus, in ou sample, ecei e a bonus and a e iden i ied wi h he ele an icons.
Impo an ly, hose cha ac e is ics (no only he icons, bu also he ype o schools) we e
isible in he lis o schools in bo h g oups, so eache s could ecognize hem easily.
Teache s in he con ol g oup ecei ed wo neu al ques ions. In he i s (mul iple
choice), hey selec ed he ou le h ough which hey ecei ed he mos in o ma ion abou
he p ocess, om a lis o i e: Tex messages, Email, Helpline, UGEL. In he second
(open-ended), eache s w o e abou he bes ou le o ecei e in o ma ion ela ed o he
12
p ocess.
By design, eache s in bo h g oups ecei ed exac ly he same in o ma ion and, wi hin
egion, had access o he same lis o acancies and ele an in o ma ion abou schools.
Sec ion A1 o he Appendix p o ides a de ailed desc ip ion o he ques ions and illus a es
how hey we e p esen ed on he pla o m.
The ea men d aws inspi a ion om beha io al economics s udies examining he
impac o gi ing ad ice (p ima ily Esk eis-Winkle e al. (2018), Esk eis-Winkle e al.
(2019)). Ou hypo hesis posi s ha by explici ly ou lining s a egies o eache s o make
a social impac , pa icula ly in eaching ha d- o-s a s uden s, hose wi h p osocial en-
dencies— eache s who p io i ize making a socie al di e ence—would be inclined owa d
consis en beha io . Consequen ly, hey would be mo e likely o apply o schools whe e
hei in luence could be maximized.
4 Da a
This pape uses adminis a i e da a om he 2022 public school eache selec ion p ocess
in Pe u. The da a include a comp ehensi e da abase o he acancies o e ed in he eache
selec ion p ocess. This da abase con ains a ious school cha ac e is ics, such as loca ion
( egion, p o ince, dis ic , UGEL), a ea (u ban/ u al), school ype (mul i- eache , mul i-
g ade, o single- eache ), and indica o s showing whe he he school is bilingual, loca ed
in he VRAEM a ea o a on ie egion, and whe he i is classi ied as ha d- o-s a .
The da ase also con ains in o ma ion on he candida es e alua ed in he cen alized
s age, speci ically hei pe o mance on he s anda dized w i en exam. The da ase in-
cludes de ails abou hose assessed in he decen alized s age, including hei esul s on
bo h he pedagogical compe ence and p o essional ajec o y assessmen . Addi ionally, i
con ains in o ma ion on candida es who success ully passed bo h s ages, including hei
13
anked p e e ences wi hin hei selec ed egion and he school whe e hey we e ul ima ely
assigned.
We es ic he sample o candida es applying o posi ions in he egula educa ion
ack, known as Educaci´on Basica Regula (EBR). Th oughou he analysis, we ocus on
wo samples. The i s is he ” ull sample,” which includes all candida es who selec ed
acancies h ough he go e nmen pla o m in any egion o Pe u (excep Lima Me opoli-
ana and Callao, whe e he e we e i ually no ha d- o-s a schools, as de ined by he
go e nmen ). This sample consis s o 74,692 indi iduals.
Al hough he expe imen was success ully implemen ed, many eache s we e likely
exposed o no a ia ion in acancy ype, ende ing he ea men ine ec i e. Teache
labo ma ke s end o be highly localized (Boyd e al.,2005;Reininge ,2012;Be oni e
al.,2020). This is because eache candida es likely selec acancies nea hei a ea o
esidence. Many candida es li e in a eas whe e he e is no a ia ion in he ype o acancy
wi hin hei egions: ei he all acancies we e in ha d- o-s a schools o non-ha d- o-s a
schools. We an icipa ed his p oblem, as i had occu ed in he p e ious (Ajzenman e al.,
2024a) and simila (Ajzenman e al.,2024b) con ex s. Thus, we p e- egis e ed he esul s
o es ic ing he ull sample o inc ease powe , al hough we did no de ail a speci ic
p ocedu e.
This lack o a ia ion in acancy ypes a ose because mo e han 20% o all dis ic -
subjec special y a ea pai s had no ha d- o-s a schools, and o e hal o dis ic -special y
a ea pai s had only ha d- o-s a schools. Teache s sea ching o acancies wi hin hei
dis ic o nea by dis ic s mus selec he a ailable acancy ype based on hei subjec
a ea, which made he ea men ine ec i e in cases whe e all acancies we e ei he ha d- o-
s a o non-ha d- o-s a . Fo ins ance, 10.9% o eache s only had access o ha d- o-s a
schools in hei esidence dis ic o nea by dis ic s, based on hei subjec a ea. Simila ly,
15.6% only had access o non-ha d- o-s a schools.
14
Hence, ollowing Ajzenman e al. (2024b), he second sample consis s o a ’likely ea ed
sample’. This sample includes eache s who ha e a leas one ha d- o-s a and one non-
ha d- o-s a school a ailable in hei dis ic o esidence (whe e hey ook he quali ying
exam) o nea by dis ic s. Gi en ha he a ea o esidence is p e-de e mined a he mo-
men o en e ing he pla o m o he i s ime, his es ic ion is exogenous o he ea -
men , hus p ese ing he causal in e p e a ion o he esul s. This likely ea ed sample
consis s o 45,578 indi iduals. Table 1 p esen s a desc ip i e summa y o he applican s
in bo h ou es ic ed (i.e., sample wi h local supply es ic ion) and ull samples.
15
Table 1: Summa y o model a iables
Sample wi h local supply es ic ion Sample wi hou local supply es ic ion
Mean SD p10 p50 p90 Coun Mean SD p10 p50 p90 Coun
Woman 0.77 0.42 0.00 1.00 1.00 45,578 0.71 0.46 0.00 1.00 1.00 74,692
Age 39.83 7.40 30.00 40.00 49.00 45,578 39.84 7.48 29.00 40.00 49.00 74,692
Disabled 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 45,578 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 74,692
To al sco e o cen alized s age 140.87 17.51 119.00 139.00 166.00 45,578 140.72 17.59 119.00 139.00 166.00 74,692
To al sco e o decen alized s age 62.20 11.33 47.50 62.00 75.50 45,578 62.37 11.50 47.74 62.50 76.00 74,692
Selec s op 1 0.58 0.49 0.00 1.00 1.00 45,578 0.63 0.48 0.00 1.00 1.00 74,692
Selec s op 2 0.66 0.47 0.00 1.00 1.00 45,578 0.70 0.46 0.00 1.00 1.00 74,692
Selec s op 3 0.72 0.45 0.00 1.00 1.00 45,578 0.75 0.44 0.00 1.00 1.00 74,692
Selec s op 4 0.75 0.43 0.00 1.00 1.00 45,578 0.78 0.42 0.00 1.00 1.00 74,692
% o HTS un il op 2 0.58 0.45 0.00 0.50 1.00 45,578 0.63 0.44 0.00 1.00 1.00 74,692
% o HTS un il op 3 0.58 0.43 0.00 0.67 1.00 45,578 0.63 0.43 0.00 1.00 1.00 74,692
% o HTS un il op 4 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.75 1.00 45,578 0.63 0.41 0.00 0.75 1.00 74,692
Assigned 0.71 0.46 0.00 1.00 1.00 45,578 0.68 0.47 0.00 1.00 1.00 74,692
Assigned HTS 0.46 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 45,578 0.48 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 74,692
No es:Woman: Takes 1 i he eache is a woman. Age: Age o he eache . Disabled: Indica es whe he he eache has a disabili y.To al
sco e o cen alized s age: Sco e o he cen alized s age(PUN exam).To al sco e o decen alized s age: Sco e o he decen alized s age.
Selec s op i: Takes 1 i a leas one HTS is selec ed be ween anking 1 and anking i. % o HTS un il op i: % o HTS selec ed un il
anking i. Assigned: Takes 1 i he eache was assigned o a acancy. Assigned o HTS: Takes a 1 i he eache was assigned o a acancy
on a HTS school. The desc ip ion o he sample wi h local supply es ic ion is in Sec ion 4
16
5 Empi ical s a egy
To measu e he o e all impac o ad ice-gi ing on di e en eache s’ selec ion ou comes,
we un eg essions o he ollowing o m:
Yi=α+βTi+γXi+ϵi(1)
we e Yiis he p e e ence o assignmen ou come o eache candida e i.Tiis a dummy
ha indica es whe he candida e i ecei ed he ea men , and Xiis a ec o including
candida e con ol a iables, such as age, gende , egion, g upo de insc ipcion, and PUN
sco e.
Table 2 compa es candida e cha ac e is ics in he be ween ea men and con ol g oups
o bo h samples. Mos o he a iables do no show any signi ican di e ence, and e en
hose ha do a e quan i a i ely almos iden ical.
5.1 Main Measu es
Ou analysis includes ou (p e- egis e ed) ou comes and p e- egis e ed he e ogenei y by
gende . The ou comes ela ing o eache choices a e (i) i hei i s choice was a ha d-
o-s a school; (ii) i hei i s wo choices included a ha d- o-s a school; and (iii) he
p opo ion o ha d- o-s a schools (as de ined by he go e nmen ) in eache s’ choice se s.
Impo an ly, ou main ou comes ela ed o choice e lec high-s akes decisions; ou o he
eache s who a e assigned o a school, 40.9% ge hei i s p e e ence and 51.7% ge hei
op-2 p e e ences.
We complemen ou analysis wi h an ”assignmen ” ou come ha cap u es whe he a
candida e was o e ed a eaching job a a ha d- o-s a school. The ou come ”Assigned
o ha d- o-s a school” akes he alue o one i he candida e was assigned o wo k in a
school ca ego ized as ”ha d- o-s a ” by he algo i hm. The assignmen ou come should
17
Table 2: Balance es
Sample wi h local es ic ion Sample wi hou local es ic ion
Con ol T ea men T ea men - Con ol Con ol T ea men T ea men - Con ol
Woman 0.767 0.777 0.010** 0.702 0.708 0.006*
(0.422) (0.416) [0.016σ] (0.457) (0.454) [0.010σ]
Age 39.816 39.840 0.024 39.841 39.834 -0.008
(7.381) (7.409) [0.002σ] (7.477) (7.485) [-0.001σ]
Disabled 0.013 0.015 0.001 0.015 0.016 0.000
(0.115) (0.120) [0.007σ] (0.123) (0.124) [0.001σ]
Gene al skills exam sco e 35.774 35.706 -0.068 35.931 35.814 -0.117**
(7.417) (7.435) [-0.006σ] (7.416) (7.415) [-0.011σ]
Specializa ion and pedagogical exam sco e 105.213 105.054 -0.159 104.946 104.754 -0.192*
(14.572) (14.586) [-0.008σ] (14.537) (14.510) [-0.009σ]
To al sco e o cen alized exam 140.987 140.760 -0.227 140.877 140.568 -0.309**
(17.488) (17.523) [-0.009σ] (17.591) (17.582) [-0.012σ]
Special y knowledge sco e 41.534 41.562 0.028 41.527 41.538 0.011
(6.186) (6.197) [0.003σ] (6.149) (6.142) [0.001σ]
Pe sonal in e iew sco e 8.217 8.244 0.027* 8.186 8.207 0.020*
(1.568) (1.563) [0.012σ] (1.560) (1.552) [0.009σ]
To al sco e o decen alized s age 62.182 62.216 0.034 62.373 62.359 -0.014
(11.259) (11.404) [0.002σ] (11.471) (11.537) [-0.001σ]
Obse a ions 22,796 22,782 45,578 37,296 37,396 74,692
No es:Woman: Takes 1 i he eache is a woman. Age: Age o he eache . Disabled:
Indica es whe he he eache has a disabili y. Gene al skills exam sco e: Sco e om he
i s pa o he cen alized s age, ela ed o gene al skills. Specializa ion and pedagogical
exam sco e: Sco e om he second pa o he cen alized s age, ocused on pedagogical,
cu icula , and disciplina y knowledge. To al sco e o cen alized s age: To al sco e om
he cen alized s age (PUN exam). Special y knowledge sco e: Sco e om he i s pa
o he decen alized s age, which in ol es class oom obse a ion. Pe sonal in e iew sco e:
Sco e om he second pa o he decen alized s age, based on a pe sonal in e iew. To al
sco e o decen alized s age: To al sco e om he decen alized s age. The desc ip ion
o he sample wi h local supply es ic ion is in Sec ion 4. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
S anda d e o s a e epo ed in pa en heses below each mean, while s anda dized di e ences
a e epo ed below he di e ence columns.
be in e p e ed wi h cau ion, as he e ec o he expe imen on eache s’ p e e ences in he
ea men g oup could in luence he ou come alloca ion o he con ol g oup in equilib ium
(see Ajzenman e al. (2024a,b) o a discussion).
Consis en wi h o he pape s in he same con ex (Ajzenman e al.,2024a) we use
eache s’ PUN sco e ( hei g ade on he quali ying exam) as a p oxy o eache quali y o
abili y. While we acknowledge ha eache s’ alue-added is a be e p edic o o eache s’
pe o mance (and, mo e gene ally, ha eache s’ e ec i eness depends on a a ie y o
ai s as shown by Rocko e al. (2011); Jacob e al. (2018)), we we e no able o use
his indica o because mos o he eache candida es we e new o he school sys em.
18
Reassu ingly, Be oni e al. (2023a) shows ha , in Pe u, PUN sco es a e signi ican ly
co ela ed wi h measu es o alue-added.
6 Resul s and In e p e a ion
We display ou main esul s in Table 3. Fo each ou come, we show wo panels. Panel A
- ou p e e ed speci ica ion - shows he esul s using he likely ea ed sample (as de ined
in sec ion 4) and Panel B uses he ull sample. Columns labeled wi h odd numbe s show
he esul s o he main eg ession wi hou in e ac ions, and columns labeled wi h e en
numbe s show he esul s including a gende dummy ha akes he alue o one o emale
candida es and ze o o he wise. This he e ogenei y was p e- egis e ed and is based on
p e ious esea ch in he same con ex , documen ing disp opo ionally highe p e e ences
o emale candida es o wo king in u ban a eas (see Ajzenman e al. (2024a) and Be oni
e al. (2022)).
As columns (1) and (2) show in panel A, he in e en ion success ully inc eased he
p opo ion o ha d- o-s a schools included in eache s’ choice se s. Fo male and emale
candida es pooled, he e ec is 0.4 pe cen age poin s (signi ican a 10%; mean in he
con ol g oup 62.5%). Column (2) shows ha he e ec seems o be d i en by male candi-
da es: 0.7 pp (signi ican a 10%; mean in he con ol g oup 70.3%), al hough he gende
in e ac ion is no signi ican . Columns (4) o (6) con i m hese esul s and emphasize he
ole o male eache s in d i ing he main e ec s.
While he e is no ea men e ec on he p obabili y o anking a ha d- o-s a school
in he op-1 o op-2 posi ions o emale and male candida es pooled, he e ec o male
candida es is signi ican and la ge. They a e 2.1 pp. (signi ican a 5%; mean in he con ol
g oup 64.6%) and 2.2 pp (signi ican a 5%; mean in he con ol g oup 65.3%) mo e likely o
ank a ha d- o-s a school as hei op o 2nd bes choices, espec i ely. Impo an ly, he
19
gende in e ac ion becomes signi ican and nega i e in bo h cases, esul ing in a null e ec
o emale candida es. Conside ing ha 51.7% we e assigned o one o hei op-2 choices,
hese ou comes a e pa icula ly ele an , as hey e e o a high-s akes, consequen ial
decision.
Consis en wi h hese esul s, columns (7) and (8) show ha he p obabili y o being
assigned o a ha d- o-s a school is 0.8 pp. (male and emale candida es pooled) and 1.5
pp. o male candida es (al hough he gende in e ac ion is no signi ican ), espec i ely.
The e ec s in bo h cases a e signi ican a he 10% le el (mean in he con ol g oup:
45.97% and 52.5% espec i ely).
The p ima y objec i e o he in e en ion was o imp o e bo h he quan i y and qual-
i y o eache s wo king in ha d- o-s a schools. Since hese schools a e inhe en ly di icul
o s a and e e y eache pa icipa ing in his p og am passed a igo ous quali ying ex-
amina ion, he goal would ha e been accomplished e en i he ea men impac ed only
he ela i ely lowe -pe o ming eache s in he sample. Ideally, an e en mo e equi able
ou come would ha e been i no only he lowes -pe o ming eache s we e in luenced by
he ea men .
In Table 4 we analyze he he e ogeneous ea men e ec s by candida e pe o mance
(using he quali ying es sco e as a con inuous measu e o u u e pe o mance). To simpli y
he in e p e a ion, we p esen sepa a e esul s o emale and male candida es. Ou esul s
sugges ha he e ec was no d i en by low pe o me s. Ins ead, he e ec is la ge o
highe -pe o ming eache s (Column 1).6While ou quali y measu e is a p oxy and may
no be a s ong p edic o o eache s’ alue-added, o he pape s in he same con ex show
6E en i he De e ed Accep ance (DA) mechanism we e no s a egy-p oo , his able shows ha
he ea men does no ein o ce s a egic beha io in he expec ed way. Unde a manipulable mecha-
nism, he op imal esponse would likely in ol e high-sco ing candida es a oiding HTS schools o secu e
posi ions in mo e desi able schools, knowing hey would be p io i ized o mo e compe i i e acancies,
while lowe -sco ing candida es would ha e s onge incen i es o apply o HTS schools, an icipa ing lowe
compe i ion. I he ea men simply made his s a egic beha io mo e salien , we would expec he
in e ac ion be ween T ea men ×PUN Sco e o be nega i e, as lowe -sco ing candida es should espond
mo e s ongly. Howe e , he posi i e (o null) coe icien con adic s his expec a ion.
20
a s ong co ela ion be ween PUN and alue-added (Be oni e al.,2023a).
Finally, gi en ha he p ima y mo i a ion o he in e en ion was o imp o e access
o high-quali y eache s o s uden s en olled in ha d- o-s a ins i u ions, we examined
whe he , as a esul o he ea men , eache s selec ed and we e o e ed posi ions in
schools whe e s uden s had ela i ely lowe sco es. Table 5 shows he esul s o he wo
s uden s’ es sco es: Ma h and Language. Each ou come e lec s he a e age es sco e o
each school in he co esponding subjec . Speci ically, he ou come ela ed o op-1 is he
a e age s uden s’ es sco e in Ma h o he school chosen as he i s p io i y in eache s’
choice se . Al hough he esul s a e noisy, hey show ha eache s in he ea men
g oup we e o e ed posi ions in schools whe e, on a e age, s uden s ha e signi ican ly
lowe pe o mance in Ma h and Language (and hus, s uden s likely o be mos in need).
21
i y. In e cul u al bilingual schools ecei ed highes p io i y gi en hei unique pedagogical
demands and dis inc ins uc ional challenges, including specialized language equi emen s
and cul u al adap a ions. VRAEM and on ie schools we e assigned second-o de p i-
o i y, e lec ing hei ope a ion in highe - isk zones cha ac e ized by socioeconomic ul-
ne abili y. Ru al designa ion se ed as he esidual ca ego y, encompassing schools ha ,
while loca ed in u al a eas, did no p esen he specialized ea u es o ei he bilingual o
VRAEM/ on ie ins i u ions. This hie a chical classi ica ion ensu es mu ual exclusi i y
while p ese ing he mos salien cha ac e is ics o each school ype.
Ou classi ica ion app oach es s on he assump ion ha eache s’ school selec ion
e lec s a hie a chical p e e ence s uc u e based on schools’ mos dis inc i e a ibu es.
When choosing in e cul u al bilingual schools, eache s likely p io i ize he linguis ic and
cul u al dimensions o ins uc ion o e geog aphic loca ion. Simila ly, he selec ion o
VRAEM o on ie schools sugges s ha eache s weigh ins i u ional ulne abili y and
challenging condi ions mo e hea ily han u al s a us pe se. This assump ion aligns
wi h a decision-making amewo k whe e eache s e alua e schools based on hei mos
dis inguishing cha ac e is ics a he han hei mo e gene al ea u es. Such hie a chical
p e e ences p o ide heo e ical jus i ica ion o ou mu ually exclusi e ca ego iza ion.
7 Discussion
This pape unde sco es he c i ical p oblem o global eache so ing in educa ion sys ems
and p esen s an expe imen al assessmen o mi iga e his issue in he Pe u ian eache
selec ion p ocess. By le e aging he beha io al p inciple o he gi ing ad ice e ec , he
s udy p omp s eache s o o e ecommenda ions abou schools hey should p io i ize
o impac s uden s’ lea ning. The esul s con ibu e o he unde s anding o eache
so ing, educa ional inequali y, and he e icacy o beha io al in e en ions in educing
28
such dispa i ies a no addi ional cos .
Add essing eache so ing h ough hese in e en ions holds p omise in p omo ing
equi y in educa ion by a ac ing quali ied eache s o unde p i ileged schools. This is
pa icula ly i al conside ing he subs an ial in luence o e ec i e educa o s on s uden
ou comes, especially among hose om disad an aged backg ounds. Addi ionally, ou
indings indica e ha scalable, cos -e ec i e beha io al s a egies can play a pi o al ole
in diminishing educa ional inequi ies by alle ia ing eache sho ages in less p i ileged
schools.
8 Da a A ailabili y S a emen
The da a suppo ing his s udy’s indings belong o he MINEDU and we e used unde
speci ic license o his wo k; he e o e, hey a e no publicly a ailable. The da a a e,
howe e , a ailable om he au ho s upon easonable eques and wi h pe mission om
MINEDU.
29
Re e ences
Aa onson, Daniel, Lisa Ba ow, and William Sande , “Teache s and s uden
achie emen in he Chicago public high schools,” Jou nal o Labo Economics, 2007,
25 (1), 95–135.
Ajzenman, Nicol´as, Eleono a Be oni, G ego y Elacqua, Luana Ma o a, and
Ca olina M´endez Va gas, “Al uism o money? Reducing eache so ing using
beha io al s a egies in Pe u,” Jou nal o Labo Economics, 2024, 42 (4), 000–000.
, G ego y Elacqua, Anal´ıa Jaimo ich, and G aciela P´e ez-N´u˜nez, “Humans
e sus Cha bo s: Scaling-up beha io al in e en ions o educe eache sho ages,” 2023.
, , Luana Ma o a, and Anne Olsen, “O de e ec s and employmen decisions:
Expe imen al e idence om a na ionwide p og am,” 2024.
A aujo, M Ca idad, Ped o Ca nei o, Yyann´u C uz-Aguayo, and No be
Schady, “Teache quali y and lea ning ou comes in kinde ga en,” The Qua e ly Jou -
nal o Economics, 2016, 131 (3), 1415–1453.
A hey, Susan and Guido Imbens, “Recu si e pa i ioning o he e ogeneous causal
e ec s,” P oceedings o he Na ional Academy o Sciences, 2016, 113 (27), 7353–7360.
and , “The s a e o applied econome ics: Causali y and policy e alua ion,” Jou nal
o Economic Pe spec i es, 2017, 31 (2), 3–32.
and S e an Wage , “Es ima ing ea men e ec s wi h causal o es s: An applica-
ion,” Obse a ional S udies, 2019, 5(2), 37–51.
Bau, Na alie and Jishnu Das, “Teache alue added in a low-income coun y,” Ame -
ican Economic Jou nal: Economic Policy, 2020, 12 (1), 62–96.
30
Be oni, Eleono a, G ego y Elacqua, Ca olina M´endez, and Humbe o San os,
“Teache hi ing ins umen s and eache alue added: E idence om Pe u,” Educa ional
E alua ion and Policy Analysis ( o hcoming), 2023.
, , Diana Hincapi´e, Ca olina M´endez, and Diana Pa edes, “Teache s’ p e -
e ences o p oximi y and he implica ions o s a ing schools: E idence om Pe u,”
Educa ion Finance and Policy, 2022, pp. 1–32.
, , , , and Diana Pa edese, “Teache s’ p e e ences o p oximi y and he
implica ions o s a ing schools: E idence om pe u,” Educa ion Finance and Policy,
2023, 18 (2), 181–212.
, , Luana Ma o a, Ma ias Ma ´ınez, Ca olina M´endez, Ve onica Mon-
al a, Anne So ie Wes h Olsen, Samma a Soa es, and Humbe o San os, “El
p oblema de la escasez de docen es en La inoam´e ica y las pol´ı icas pa a en en a lo,”
2020.
Bobba, Ma eo, Tim Ede e , Gianma co Leon-Cilio a, Ch is ophe Neilson,
and Ma co G Nieddu, “Teache compensa ion and s uc u al inequali y: E idence
om cen alized eache school choice in Pe ´u,” Technical Repo , Na ional Bu eau o
Economic Resea ch 2021.
Boyd, Donald, Hamil on Lank o d, Susanna Loeb, and James Wycko , “Ex-
plaining he sho ca ee s o high-achie ing eache s in schools wi h low-pe o ming
s uden s,” Ame ican Economic Re iew, 2005, 95 (2), 166–171.
, , , and , “Analyzing he de e minan s o he ma ching o public school eache s
o jobs: Disen angling he p e e ences o eache s and employe s,” Jou nal o Labo
Economics, 2013, 31 (1), 83–117.
31
, Pamela G ossman, Hamil on Lank o d, Susanna Loeb, and James Wycko ,
“How changes in en y equi emen s al e he eache wo k o ce and a ec s uden
achie emen ,” Educa ion Finance and Policy, 2006, 1(2), 176–216.
B i o, Diogo GC, Paolo Pino i, and B eno Sampaio, “The e ec o job loss and
unemploymen insu ance on c ime in B azil,” Econome ica, 2022, 90 (4), 1393–1423.
Bueno, Ca yc uz and Tim R Sass, “The E ec s o Di e en ial Pay on Teache Rec ui -
men and Re en ion,” And ew Young School o Policy S udies Resea ch Pape Se ies,
2018, (18-07).
Clo el e , Cha les, Elizabe h Glennie, Helen Ladd, and Jacob Vigdo , “Would
highe sala ies keep eache s in high-po e y schools? E idence om a policy in e en-
ion in No h Ca olina,” Jou nal o Public Economics, 2008, 92 (5-6), 1352–1370.
Dee, Thomas S and Dan Goldhabe , “Unde s anding and add essing eache sho -
ages in he Uni ed S a es,” The Hamil on P ojec , 2017.
Die e le, S e en, Cassand a M Gua ino, Ma k D Reckase, and Je ey M
Woold idge, “How do p incipals assign s uden s o eache s? Finding e idence in
adminis a i e da a and he implica ions o alue added,” Jou nal o Policy Analysis
and Managemen , 2015, 34 (1), 32–58.
Elacqua, G ego y and Luana Ma o a, “Is wo king one job be e han many? As-
sessing he impac o mul iple school jobs on eache pe o mance in Rio de Janei o,”
Economics o Educa ion Re iew, 2020, 78.
, Diana Hincapie, Isabel Hincapi´e, and Ve onica Mon al a, “Can Financial
Incen i es Help Disad an aged Schools o A ac and Re ain High-pe o ming Teach-
e s?: E idence om Chile,” Technical Repo , IDB Wo king Pape Se ies 1080, In e -
Ame ican De elopmen Bank No embe 2019.
32
Esk eis-Winkle , Lau en, Ayele Fishbach, and Angela L Duckwo h, “Dea
Abby: Should I gi e ad ice o ecei e i ?,” Psychological Science, 2018, 29 (11), 1797–
1806.
, Ka he ine L Milkman, Dena M G ome , and Angela L Duckwo h, “A la ge-
scale ield expe imen shows gi ing ad ice imp o es academic ou comes o he ad iso ,”
P oceedings o he na ional academy o sciences, 2019, 116 (30), 14808–14810.
E ans, Da id K. and Amina Mendez Acos a, “How o ec ui eache s o ha d- o-
s a schools: A sys ema ic e iew o e idence om low- and middle-income coun ies,”
Economics o Educa ion Re iew, 2023, 95, 102430.
Falch, To be g, “Teache mobili y esponses o wage changes: E idence om a quasi-
na u al expe imen ,” Ame ican Economic Re iew, 2011, 101 (3), 460–65.
Feng, Li and Tim R Sass, “The impac o incen i es o ec ui and e ain eache s
in “ha d- o-s a ” subjec s,” Jou nal o Policy Analysis and Managemen , 2018, 37 (1),
112–135.
Glaze man, S e en, Ali P o ik, Bing u Teh, Julie B uch, Neil Se o e al.,
“Mo ing High-Pe o ming Teache s Implemen a ion o T ans e Incen i es in Se en Dis-
ic s,” Technical Repo , Ma hema ica Policy Resea ch 2012.
Jackson, C. Ki abo, “S uden demog aphics, eache so ing, and eache quali y: E i-
dence om he end o school deseg ega ion,” Jou nal o Labo Economics, 2009, 27 (2),
213–256.
Jackson, C Ki abo, “Wha do es sco es miss? The impo ance o eache e ec s on
non– es sco e ou comes,” Jou nal o Poli ical Economy, 2018, 126 (5), 2072–2107.
33
Jacob, B ian A, Jonah E Rocko , E ic S Taylo , Benjamin Lindy, and Rachel
Rosen, “Teache applican hi ing and eache pe o mance: E idence om DC public
schools,” Jou nal o Public Economics, 2018, 166, 81–97.
Kane, Thomas J and Douglas O S aige , “Es ima ing eache impac s on s uden
achie emen : An expe imen al e alua ion,” Technical Repo , Na ional Bu eau o Eco-
nomic Resea ch 2008.
Ladd, Helen F and Lucy C So ensen, “Re u ns o eache expe ience: S uden
achie emen and mo i a ion in middle school,” Educa ion Finance and Policy, 2017,
12 (2), 241–279.
Lank o d, Hamil on, Susanna Loeb, and James Wycko , “Teache so ing and
he pligh o u ban schools: A desc ip i e analysis,” Educa ional E alua ion and Policy
Analysis, 2002, 24 (1), 37–62.
Ma o a, Luana, “Teache s’ Con ac ual Ties and S uden Achie emen : The E ec o
Tempo a y and Mul iple-School Teache s in B azil,” Compa a i e Educa ion Re iew,
2019, 63 (3).
Neilson, Ch is ophe , Ma eo Bobba, Tim Ede e , Gianma co Leon-Cilio a,
and Ma co Nieddu, “Teache compensa ion and s uc u al inequali y: E idence om
cen alized eache school choice in pe u,” 2021.
Pop-Eleches, C is ian and Miguel U quiola, “Going o a be e school: E ec s and
beha io al esponses,” Ame ican Economic Re iew, 2013, 103 (4), 1289–1324.
Puga ch, Todd and Elizabe h Sch oede , “Incen i es o eache eloca ion: E idence
om he Gambian ha dship allowance,” Economics o Educa ion Re iew, 2014, 41, 120–
136.
34
Reininge , Michelle, “Home own disad an age? I depends on whe e you’ e om:
Teache s’ loca ion p e e ences and he implica ions o s a ing schools,” Educa ional
E alua ion and Policy Analysis, 2012, 34 (2), 127–145.
Ri kin, S e en G, E ic A Hanushek, and John F Kain, “Teache s, schools, and
academic achie emen ,” Econome ica, 2005, 73 (2), 417–458.
Rocko , Jonah E, B ian A Jacob, Thomas J Kane, and Douglas O S aige ,
“Can you ecognize an e ec i e eache when you ec ui one?,” Educa ion inance and
Policy, 2011, 6(1), 43–74.
Roge s, Todd, Ka he ine L Milkman, Leslie K John, and Michael I No on,
“Beyond good in en ions: P omp ing people o make plans imp o es ollow- h ough on
impo an asks,” Beha io al Science & Policy, 2015, 1(2), 33–41.
Rosa, Leona do, “Teache P e e ences in De eloping Coun ies,” 2017.
Sass, Tim R, Jane Hannaway, Zeyu Xu, Da id N Figlio, and Li Feng, “Value
added o eache s in high-po e y schools and lowe po e y schools,” Jou nal o u ban
Economics, 2012, 72 (2-3), 104–122.
Schae e , Michael, Leigh P Tos , Li Huang, F ancesca Gino, and Rick La -
ick, “Ad ice gi ing: A sub le pa hway o powe ,” Pe sonali y and Social Psychology
Bulle in, 2018, 44 (5), 746–761.
Sp inge , Ma hew G, Walke A Swain, and Luis A Rod iguez, “E ec i e eache
e en ion bonuses: E idence om Tennessee,” Educa ional E alua ion and Policy Anal-
ysis, 2016, 38 (2), 199–221.
Su che , Leib, Linda Da ling-Hammond, and Desi ee Ca e -Thomas, “A com-
ing c isis in eaching? Teache supply, demand, and sho ages in he US,” 2016.
35
Thiemann, Pe a, “Inequali y in educa ion ou comes: The ole o so ing
among s uden s, eache s, and schools,” Unpublished manusc ip , Lund Uni e si y.
h ps://eks e n. ile . uib. no/s /Econ% 20web/Pe a% 20Thiemann eache -so ing-
2018-10-16. pd , 2018.
UNESCO, “Global epo on eache s: add essing eache sho ages,” In e na ional Task
Fo ce on Teache s o Educa ion 2030, 2023, 1(1), 1–32.
Weinga en, E an, Qijia Chen, Maxwell McAdams, Jessica Yi, Jus in Heple ,
and Dolo es Alba ac´ın, “F om p imed concep s o ac ion: A me a-analysis o he
beha io al e ec s o inciden ally p esen ed wo ds,” Psychological bulle in, 2016, 142 (5),
472.
36
Appendix
A1 Applica ion Pla o m
Following Ajzenman e al. (2024a), schools we e labeled wi h icons highligh ing hei
associa ed incen i e schemes. Speci ically, hese consis ed o a money bag icon, e e encing
he mone a y incen i es, a ladde , indica ing he oppo uni y o as e ca ee p og ession,
and a school wi h a hea icon, symbolizing places whe e eache s could ha e a g ea e
social impac .
In bo h he ea men and con ol g oups, igh a e eache s en e ed he pla o m,
hey saw a b ie pa ag aph desc ibing he nex s eps and pic u es o he h ee icons ha
iden i ied schools as ha d- o-s a , as shown in Figu e A1. These icons we e shown o all
eache s, ega dless o he ea men condi ion, as shown in Figu e A2.
A1.1 Ha d- o-s a schools in he pla o m
A1.2 In e en ion
Be o e selec ing acancies on he pla o m, candida es answe ed wo ques ions: one mul iple-
choice and one open-ended. The mul iple-choice ques ion o he ea men g oup was as
ollows: ”Many eache s commi ed ou coun y’s educa ion a e pa icipa ing in he 2022
CPM En y Con es . I you had he oppo uni y o speak o one o hem who exp essed
indecision abou which educa ional ins i u ion o choose bu knew hey wan ed o go o
one whe e hey could ha e he g ea es impac on s uden lea ning, wha ype o educa-
ional ins i u ion would you ecommend?” The op ions we e: Vulne able u ban. Bo de o
VRAEM, In e cul u al bilingual, Ru al, and Non- ulne able u ban. Fo he con ol g oup,
he mul iple-choice ques ion was: ”Th ough which communica ion channel did you ecei e
37
A2 Causal o es
Figu e A7: His og am o CATE: Selec s HTS in i s posi ion
(a) Likely ea ed sample (b) Full sample
No es: This igu e shows he ea men e ec he e ogenei y ob ained by he causal
o es es ima ion in he ou come Selec s HTS in i s posi ion.Selec s HTS
school in i s posi ion is a dummy ha equals 1 i he applican s selec ed a ha d-
o-s a school in hei 1s posi ion among hei lis ed schools. The desc ip ion o he
sample wi h local supply es ic ion is in Sec ion 4.
44
Figu e A8: His og am o CATE: Selec s HTS in second posi ion
(a) Likely ea ed sample (b) Full sample
No es: This igu e shows he ea men e ec he e ogenei y ob ained by he causal
o es es ima ion in he ou come Selec s HTS in second posi ion.Selec s HTS
school in second posi ion is a dummy ha equals 1 i he applican s selec ed a
ha d- o-s a school in hei 2nd posi ion among hei lis ed schools. The desc ip ion
o he sample wi h local supply es ic ion is in Sec ion 4.
Figu e A9: His og am o CATE: % o HTS
(a) Likely ea ed sample (b) Full sample
No es: This igu e shows he ea men e ec he e ogenei y ob ained by he causal
o es es ima ion in he ou come % o lis ed HTS schools.% o lis ed HTS
schools is he pe cen age o ha d o s a schools in he choice se . The desc ip ion o
he sample wi h local supply es ic ion is in Sec ion 4.
45
Figu e A10: His og am o CATE: Assigned o HTS
(a) Likely ea ed sample (b) Full sample
No es: This igu e shows he ea men e ec he e ogenei y ob ained by he causal
o es es ima ion in he ou come Assigned o HTS.Assigned o HTS is a dummy
ha equals 1 i he applican is assigned o a HTS school. The desc ip ion o he sample
wi h local supply es ic ion is in Sec ion 4.
46
Table A1: Co a ia es mean o op and bo om quin iles o ea men
e ec
Full Sample Res ic ed Sample
% o lis ed HTS schools Q1 (I) Q5 (II) Di e ence (II)-(I) Q1 (I) Q5 (II) Di e ence (II)-(I)
Man 0.262 0.272 0.010 0.196 0.225 0.029
[0.034] [0.133]
Age 39.763 40.209 0.446 39.120 39.953 0.833
[0.011] [0.021]
Disabled 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.011 0.012 0.000
[0.011] [0.031]
Special y knowledge 101.505 109.386 7.881 101.306 111.263 9.958
[0.075] [0.095]
Cen alized exam sco e 137.312 146.828 9.515 136.242 148.959 12.717
[0.068] [0.090]
Pe sonal in e iew sco e 8.428 8.200 -0.228 8.152 8.294 0.142
[-0.028] [0.017]
Selec s HTS school in 1s posi ion
Man 0.224 0.298 0.074 0.166 0.243 0.077
[0.257] [0.351]
Age 38.744 40.891 2.147 38.547 40.603 2.057
[0.054] [0.052]
Disabled 0.014 0.016 0.002 0.011 0.015 0.003
[0.126] [0.241]
Special y knowledge 103.455 106.641 3.186 102.495 107.254 4.759
[0.030] [0.045]
Cen alized exam sco e 140.295 143.075 2.780 138.779 143.199 4.420
[0.020] [0.031]
Pe sonal in e iew sco e 8.337 8.297 -0.040 8.067 8.416 0.348
[-0.005] [0.042]
Selec s HTS school in 2nd posi ion
Man 0.240 0.280 0.040 0.166 0.220 0.054
[0.139] [0.244]
Age 39.520 40.289 0.769 39.435 39.464 0.029
[0.019] [0.001]
Disabled 0.014 0.016 0.001 0.012 0.014 0.002
[0.082] [0.131]
Special y knowledge 102.353 108.606 6.253 102.311 109.332 7.021
[0.060] [0.067]
Cen alized exam sco e 138.811 144.991 6.180 138.282 144.895 6.614
[0.044] [0.047]
Pe sonal in e iew sco e 8.420 8.190 -0.229 8.325 8.333 0.008
[-0.028] [0.001]
Teache is assigned o a HTS school
Man 0.254 0.293 0.039 0.181 0.216 0.035
[0.135] [0.160]
Age 40.006 38.392 -1.614 39.650 38.869 -0.781
[-0.040] [-0.020]
Disabled 0.015 0.014 -0.001 0.013 0.014 0.000
[-0.093] [0.031]
Special y knowledge sco e 103.140 107.437 4.297 104.954 106.293 1.339
[0.041] [0.013]
Cen alized exam sco e 138.886 144.657 5.771 140.816 142.481 1.665
[0.041] [0.012]
Pe sonal in e iew sco e 8.306 8.359 0.053 8.346 8.326 -0.020
[0.006] [-0.002]
No es: This able shows he mean alue o each co a ia e o he bo om and op
quin iles o he ea men e ec . The di e ence columns display he di e ences in
poin s and also as di e ences exp essed in s anda d de ia ions o he a iable. The
ou come % o lis ed HTS schools is he pe cen age o ha d o s a schools in he
choice se . The ou come Selec s HTS school in is a dummy ha equals 1 i he
applican s selec ed a ha d- o-s a school in hei 1s o 2nd posi ion among hei lis ed
schools, espec i ely. Teache is assigned o a HTS school is a dummy ha equals
1 i he applican is assigned o a HTS school. The desc ip ion o he sample wi h local
supply es ic ion is in Sec ion 4.
47
