Editorials

Our often amazing Gov. Schwarzenegger has outdone himself this time. He’s going to improve education and save money at the same time by tying teachers’ pay to how well their students do. It’s a safe bet that if California’s per-student expenditures on education continue to be among the lowest in the country, our students will continue to fail—thus saving the state money. It’s a brilliant idea—amazing that no one has thought of it before. But the problem is that teacher pay represents a pretty small part of California’s billion-dollar budget shortfall, so keeping teachers on short rations won’t do all that much to save money. We have a modest suggestion: How about taking the concept and applying it to other branches of government? What if all state and local employees were paid by how well they did their job, instead of by how much they’ve been able to squeeze out of government with well-placed campaign contributions to the right people?  

Take prison guards, for example. According to commentator Van Jones, “despite pay hikes in 1998, 1999 and 2000, [former Gov. Davis] approved raising the average prison guard salary…to a whopping $73,428 by 2006. That will cost taxpayers an extra $120 million this year. By 2006, the annual price tag will be about $700 million.”  

Let’s compare that with the salaries of Berkeley public school teachers. The lowest salary offered last year, entry-level, was $33,848. The average was $57,059, and the top of the range was $70,358 (i.e. less than the average prison guard.)  

Last week the Gobernator announced that he was reorganizing the California prison system. His new plan changes the name of the organization to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and it will operate adult prisons as well as the juvenile facilities now run by the California Youth Authority. Here’s a great idea: How about paying prison guards based on how well they rehabilitate prisoners? Merit pay based on lowering the recidivism rate: It’s fair, and it’s cost effective. Since prison guards are paid so much more than teachers, the percentage saving per employee if guards were paid for performance would add up to much more.  

Or, on the local level, how about applying the merit pay system to police officers? If the crime rate goes down on your beat, you get a raise, but if it goes up, your pay goes down. 

Here’s the starting level pay for police, as posted on the City of Berkeley’s website: “Police Officers (Entry Level)$69,156 - $86,064 annual salary… the city provides $1000 annual uniform allowance.” Compare that to entry-level teachers’ salaries, and you can see that the savings will be much greater if the merit system is applied to police officers instead of teachers.  

(And how about that uniform allowance? Teachers have to dress respectably, yet they pay for their own clothes. They even have to pay for their teaching supplies much of the time these days. If police officers had to pay for their own clothes and supplies, think how much could be saved.) 

Performance-based pay scales would work in other government jobs too. Planners could be compensated only for projects where their recommendations are not challenged by either applicants or citizens. Arborists could be paid according to how many trees they plant which thrive, and docked if trees die under their care. Those new systems which track auto speed could be used to set pay for highway patrol officers: If fewer drivers speed on your watch, your pay goes up.  

Even legislators could be put on the merit system. Do-nothing assemblymembers from safe districts who snooze through legislative hearings and seldom sponsor a bill could have their pay reduced, perhaps to the level of the average schoolteacher’s salary.  

The opportunities are endless. In fact, the only real problem with Schwarzenegger’s plan is that he’s applying it to the wrong end of the pay scale. Setting up a system to extract a few bucks from poorly paid teachers is a waste of time and money—let’s start with the well-paid government employees first, and score some real savings.  

—Becky O’Malley