In the recent federal-government-initiated accountability movement, teachers are one of the key stakeholders held accountable for student learning (Elliott & Hout, 2011). In this movement, we have also witnessed a renewed interest in performance-related pay (PRP) to incentivize teachers who significantly contribute to student learning (Podgursky & Springer, 2007; Liang & Akiba, 2011; Woessmann, 2011; Liang, 2013). Because student learning is measured largely by high-stakes tests, teachers are under pressure to “game the system and teach to the test for higher test scores instead of putting more effort into enhancing student understanding and cognitive skills” (Jacob & Levitt, 2003; Jacob, 2005; Liang & Akiba, 2015, p. 395). This challenges efforts to establish a connection between PRP and constructivist teaching practices that might not relate well to student test scores. In fact, some studies already indicated that PRP did not lead to improvement of instruction (Lavy, 2009; Glewwe et al., 2010).